More Religious Right Propaganda on Religious Liberty

[FredFlash]

The Founders got it right: Religion now rests in a tortured place in society today, thanks largely to unfortunate and misguided rulings of the Supreme Court.

By Stephen Mansfield

Two days after he wrote the famous words "separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to Baptists in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson began attending church — on the floor of the House of Representatives. He would attend the makeshift church in the national Capitol nearly every Sunday morning for the rest of his presidency. Clearly, his understanding of the connection between religion and government is not the one we endure today.

(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)

We should not be surprised. It was Jefferson, after all, who insisted upon the Bible as part of the curriculum at the University of Virginia, Jefferson who approved federal funding for a Catholic priest to serve the Kaskaski Indians, and Jefferson who once said, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished anyone to be." True, he was far from theologically orthodox, he expected most of the young men in his day to end their lives as Unitarians and he angrily despised the clergy of his day. Yet, contrary to the secular dreams of an influential few today, Jefferson envisioned a government that would encourage religion while neither submitting to nor erecting a religious tyranny.

Even if Jefferson had envisioned a secular state, it would have made little difference in the early history of our nation. It was not his words that carried the force of law — written as they were 14 years after the Constitution was ratified — but rather the 10 words that are undoubtedly the most tortured in our history: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These words, the first 10 of our Bill of Rights, make the intentions of the Founding Fathers clear. Having just fought a war of independence against England and her state church, they had no intention of allowing the U.S. Congress the authority to erect a new religious tyranny to dominate their young nation. Instead, they denied Congress the power to create a national church. The states and the individual citizens, of course, were free to be as religious as they wanted to be.

The court oversteps

The result was a marvelous triumph of freedom, a miracle of history, prevailing for more than 150 years. Never had religion so graced a nation without controlling it. Then came the disastrous Everson case of 1947. Breaking with both legal precedent and the clear counsel of our history, the Supreme Court exchanged Jefferson's words for the first 10 words of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation between church and state" — which had appeared in neither the Constitution nor the debates that produced the Bill of Rights — was made the law of the land.

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state," wrote Justice Hugo Black for the majority. "That wall must be kept high and impregnable." Accordingly, the court ruled, no government policy or funds, at any level of government, may encourage religion to any degree.

It was, simply put, bad law: without precedent, unworkable and — given that Black feigned support for his reasoning from the intentions of the founding era — informed by the most astonishing revisionism. Now, the secularist storm troops of the American Civil Liberties Union and its like drive religion from the public square with the mandate of the Everson ruling in hand. Religious symbols are removed from cemeteries, student prayer groups are driven from public facilities, and religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits. All this comes at a time when America is experiencing a new birth of religious interest, one that could grant a needed infusion of nobility, ethics and wisdom to our national life.

There is hope: Measures are arising in Congress designed to hold Everson's ravages in check. There is also the possibility that the Supreme Court may have opportunity to revisit elements of the case in years to come.

A true freedom of religion

The most important point to remember in this, the 60th anniversary year of the Everson decision, is that our Founding Fathers did in fact make a covenant with us. That covenant guaranteed us that Congress would make no state church but that religion could be free to shape our national life with its ethical and ennobling content. We suffer for lack of that content today, and it is time for us to consider anew the wisdom of our Founders in guaranteeing us the blessings of faith while protecting us from the dark tyrannies of faith that bedeviled the centuries before us. The Founders' plan for religion in our national life was certainly more successful than the confused design the courts have saddled us with today.

It was John Quincy Adams who called to us from an earlier age when he wrote, "Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." We may well do so, but only if we return to the religious wisdom of our national fathers.

Stephen Mansfield is a best-selling author. His book Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America and What's Happened Since was released in June.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/the-founders-go.html

[damode]

I just dont understand why the religious right jump on jefferson and say he was a christian. Just because he said god once or twice doesnt mean anything.

Jefferson was a deist. He believed in a god but he really despised organized religious institutions. He was sort of like an agnostic.

Heres an amazing quote right here"

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.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Basicly hes saying that every person can practice their religion AND no person can push their religious views unto another person.

Its such a freaking simple term. Practice what you want but DO NOT force another person to practice what you believe.

[damode]

Jefferson also knew very well what a society can become if it is ruled based on religion.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Bearcat357]

Yawn..... :rolleyes:

And your point is...?

[equinox137]

Jefferson was not a deist. Jefferson believed that it was not the place for the church or the state to interfere in each other's affairs. As he put it, he was a "sect by myself, as far as I know." http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

[Bearcat357]

Jefferson was not a deist. Jefferson believed that it was not the place for the church or the state to interfere in each other's affairs. As he put it, he was a "sect by myself, as far as I know." http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

Damn....you're posting facts and then backing it up with references.....

Wonder how that will work around here with a couple of the folks..... :rolleyes:


:D

[FredFlash]

I just dont understand why the religious right jump on jefferson and say he was a christian. Just because he said god once or twice doesnt mean anything.

Jefferson was a deist. He believed in a god but he really despised organized religious institutions. He was sort of like an agnostic.

Heres an amazing quote right here"

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.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Basicly hes saying that every person can practice their religion AND no person can push their religious views unto another person.

Its such a freaking simple term. Practice what you want but DO NOT force another person to practice what you believe.

The advocates of strict separation of church and state make a big mistake when they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the post enactment writings of Thomas Jefferson. The object of interpretation of a legal instrument is to ascertain the "will of the legislator at the time the law was made."

By establishing Thomas Jefferson as the primary source of the meaning of the First Amendment, the issue shifts from the words of the Constitution to the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, which are not the "signs [most] natural and probable" of the intention of the legislator.

There are well established common law rules of legal interpretation. However, there are no rules for interpreting the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

The Counterfeit Christians of the Religious Right who despise separation of government and religion, and true religious liberty, find it easier to twist the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, than to distort the words of the Constitution, into support for their preference for civil jurisdiction over the duty we owe to our Creator.

[bldg0031]

The advocates of strict separation of church and state make a big mistake when they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the post enactment writings of Thomas Jefferson. The object of interpretation of a legal instrument is to ascertain the "will of the legislator at the time the law was made."

By establishing Thomas Jefferson as the primary source of the meaning of the First Amendment, the issue shifts from the words of the Constitution to the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, which are not the "signs [most] natural and probable" of the intention of the legislator.

There are well established common law rules of legal interpretation. However, there are no rules for interpreting the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

The Counterfeit Christians of the Religious Right who despise separation of government and religion, and true religious liberty, find it easier to twist the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, than to distort the words of the Constitution, into support for their preference for civil jurisdiction over the duty we owe to our Creator.

The first amendment is pretty simple .. it gives religious freedom. Therefor since I do not believe in the same god you do your god can't come into th government at all. This being because if he does that is going against my religious beliefs.

Pretty much all religions have the Though shall honor no god other than me. So having congress start off with sessions of prayer from another religion would be forcing someone to violate their own religious beliefs.

Also since we are trying to think of what the framers were intending when they made the constitution it is pretty clear in writings before the constitution that Jefferson wanted a wall between church and state.

[bldg0031]

Damn....you're posting facts and then backing it up with references.....

Wonder how that will work around here with a couple of the folks..... :rolleyes:


:D

Funny .. when I quote a source you just seemed to disappear from the argument. But glad you dropped in with this add in .. it really helped the settle the argument.

[bldg0031]

Jefferson was not a deist. Jefferson believed that it was not the place for the church or the state to interfere in each other's affairs. As he put it, he was a "sect by myself, as far as I know." http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

Did you read your source? He basically says he is a sect of himself. My argument in the other thread didn't say he was anti religion ... i said he was anti organized religion which this pretty much says to me.

"He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ" ... Doesn't sound like much of a church going Christian to me.

[djack16]

The Counterfeit Christians of the Religious Right...
Three words. Laughed..out..loud.

Once again you drop a gem in this pond :D.

Equinox, that citation you gave is damning if anything. The guy, obviously, was not impressed with organized religion. It doesn't take a braniac to see that religious imposition divides the melting pot that is America. Thank goodness we have people fighting for everybody's right to believe their own way; keeping compulsory prayer and worship from harming students and their text books with scientific facts.

[FredFlash]

The first amendment is pretty simple

The First Amendment is not simple, because it is ambiguous. One reason it is ambiguous is because the words "establishment" and "religion" in the Amendment had more than one meaning at the time the Amendment was adopted.

[FredFlash]

Also since we are trying to think of what the framers were intending when they made the constitution it is pretty clear in writings before the constitution that Jefferson wanted a wall between church and state.

Jefferson was not the legislator who made the Constitution or Bill of Rights, therefore, his will, regarding the relationship of government to religion, at the time the two laws were made, is irrelevant. However, under Blackstone's Third Rule of Interpretation, which covers "subject matter", Jefferson' pre-enactment writings on the subject of "an establishment of religion", and "the free exercise thereof", might be admissible and useful to resolve any ambiguity with regard to the meaning of the words of the Constitution or First Amendment.

[Columbus]

"He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ" ... Doesn't sound like much of a church going Christian to me.

He never said he was.

Also since we are trying to think of what the framers were intending when they made the constitution it is pretty clear in writings before the constitution that Jefferson wanted a wall between church and state.

And what Jefferson though mattered to the Constitution why?

And as long as you keep quoting the man, saying what he would think about all of this, he also said that individuals could not be bound by the actions of the generations before them. Basically meaning if he were around, he would tell us the Constitution doesn't even need to apply anymore in the first place. Not saying what I think here, but as long as we're arguing over what he would do, there you go.

[John3:16]

Three words. Laughed..out..loud.

Once again you drop a gem in this pond :D.

Equinox, that citation you gave is damning if anything. The guy, obviously, was not impressed with organized religion. It doesn't take a braniac to see that religious imposition divides the melting pot that is America. Thank goodness we have people fighting for everybody's right to believe their own way; keeping compulsory prayer and worship from harming students and their text books with scientific facts.

If anything, the crime in our schools has sky rocketed since they removed the bible and prayer from our schools. I believe it was 1967, I am not sure but you can look it up. Scientific evidence, yea right. What evidence, did you find the missing link yet?

[ignignokt373]

Funny .. when I quote a source you just seemed to disappear from the argument. But glad you dropped in with this add in .. it really helped the settle the argument.

Hate to tell you Slick, but he's got you on ignore (He told me via PM a couple of mins ago when I came on and saw you mouthing him).

That means he can't see what your posting, even if the two of you are posting on the same thread. ;)

Funny, figured since you're so smart, you would have realized that by now. :rolleyes:

[retired]

If anything, the crime in our schools has sky rocketed since they removed the bible and prayer from our schools. I believe it was 1967, I am not sure but you can look it up. Scientific evidence, yea right. What evidence, did you find the missing link yet?

I suspect you have zero sources to substantiate that?:) And when was prayer and the bible removed from the schools?:confused: :confused:

[damode]

If anything, the crime in our schools has sky rocketed since they removed the bible and prayer from our schools. I believe it was 1967, I am not sure but you can look it up. Scientific evidence, yea right. What evidence, did you find the missing link yet?

People have been living longer since scientists developed the germ theory instead of praying over sick bodies hoping they get better.

For every usless irrelevant comment about religion/science you got, surely theres one back for you :)

[bldg0031]

He never said he was.


Actually he did .. it is from another thread. He argued it quite vigorously.

[FredFlash]

If anything, the crime in our schools has sky rocketed since they removed the bible and prayer from our schools. I believe it was 1967, I am not sure but you can look it up.

There never was as much religious instruction in the public schools as the propaganda of the Counterfeit Christian Right claims there was.

Below is an excerpt from an 1854 plea by Stephen Coldwell for public schools to provide Christian religious instructions according to the "common standard." Of interest is the author’s comment that the sprit at the moment is “to have children go without religious instruction” in the public schools. It appears that Bible reading and prayer was not the general practice in 1854 and Coldwell didn’t much like it.

Shall it be said, to the injury of Christianity, that we prefer to have children go without religious instruction, rather than have them instructed in the "common standard?" This spirit, which is a reproach to Christians, is fatally indulged at this moment throughout this country; let every man who entertains it, examine himself anew, to see whether he is not forgetting Him, who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." This voice should be heard in every school in the land, as it repeats, "Suffer little children to come unto me;" and no child should grow up without being taught from whom this invitation comes and how deeply he is interested in it.

Source of Information: The position of Christianity in the United States, in its relations with our political institutions,and specially with reference to religious instruction in the public schools.: By Stephen Colwell (1854)

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;idno=age0581.0001.001;frm=framese t;view=text;seq=121;page=root;size=s

[equinox137]

Did you read your source? He basically says he is a sect of himself. My argument in the other thread didn't say he was anti religion ... i said he was anti organized religion which this pretty much says to me.

"He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ" ... Doesn't sound like much of a church going Christian to me.

I know what it says. In fact, I already printed his quote. Deciding you're not a member of a denomination or sect is a far cry from being "anti-organized religion".

Jefferson was not part of any Deist organization during his lifetime. Before the Revolutionary War, he was a member of the Anglican church. After the War, he regularly attended church services and when he was President, he authorized federal funding for missionary work among Kaskaskia Indians in 1803 and authored Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, which was used for the purpose of the same. He regularly attended church services at the US Capitol and authorized the War Department and the Treasury Building to be used for church services. Jefferson also dated official documents with "in the year of Our Lord Christ" during his presidency . . . Isn't exactly anti-organized religion.

It is true, however, that he rejected the deity of Christ at the end of his lifetime and mistrusted religious leadership throughout his life, probably from abuses of power of religious authorities throughout history.

[equinox137]

Three words. Laughed..out..loud.

Once again you drop a gem in this pond :D.

Equinox, that citation you gave is damning if anything. The guy, obviously, was not impressed with organized religion. It doesn't take a braniac to see that religious imposition divides the melting pot that is America. Thank goodness we have people fighting for everybody's right to believe their own way; keeping compulsory prayer and worship from harming students and their text books with scientific facts.

Sorry, Djack but you are misreading the citation. No one has argued that Jefferson opted not to be a part of any particular denomination after the Revolutionary War. However, there is nothing to state that he was hostile to "organized religion".

[FredFlash]

when he was President, he authorized federal funding for missionary work among Kaskaskia Indians in 1803...

Why missionaries to just that one very small Indian tribe?

[FredFlash]

Jefferson authored Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, which was used for the purpose of the same.

This is another David Barton myth. It is debunked at
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/07/another-david-barton-myth-debunked.html (http://another-david-barton-myth-debunked)

[FredFlash]

Jefferson regularly attended church services at the US Capitol.

Why were the religious services always rudely and disrespectfully interrupted so that the mail in the Capitol's mail box could be collected?

[FredFlash]

Jefferson authorized the War Department and the Treasury Building to be used for church services.

Was he the President that granted the atheist Robert Owen permission to use the House of Representatives Chamber to deliver some lectures?

[FredFlash]

Jefferson also dated official documents with "in the year of Our Lord Christ" during his presidency.

What documents?

[retired]

What difference does it make what religion if any Jefferson was?:confused: :confused:

[damode]

Personally, i really dont care.

But the religious right love to use him because he says "God" a few times in his writings.

He never specifies the christian God...he just says God

He couldve been talking about Zeus or the Sphagetti Monster for all we know, but the religious right see the word "God" and they almost pee their pants in joy and run around claiming proof

[equinox137]

This is another David Barton myth. It is debunked at
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/07/another-david-barton-myth-debunked.html (http://http://positiveliberty.com/2006/07/another-david-barton-myth-debunked.html)

I'm curious - what did that blog say to "debunk" this so-called myth, aside from regergitate everything that liberals have been saying on the issue?

[equinox137]

Personally, i really dont care.

But the religious right love to use him because he says "God" a few times in his writings.

He never specifies the christian God...he just says God

He couldve been talking about Zeus or the Sphagetti Monster for all we know, but the religious right see the word "God" and they almost pee their pants in joy and run around claiming proof

In a region and era when religious diversity meant having Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopians, and others, - in a time when sphagetti didn't exist as a dish in America, what other "God" could he have been referring to?

[equinox137]

Was he the President that granted the atheist Robert Owen permission to use the House of Representatives Chamber to deliver some lectures?

Nope.

Robert Owen was managing cotton mills in Scotland when Jefferson was President. From what I can gather, Owen had never set foot in the U.S. until December 1824, about a year and a half before Jefferson died. (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/robertowen/)

[equinox137]

What difference does it make what religion if any Jefferson was?:confused: :confused:

It matters somewhat because his writings are being twisted and reinterpreted to fit the agenda of some groups and individuals today.

[retired]

It matters somewhat because his writings are being twisted and reinterpreted to fit the agenda of some groups and individuals today.


Twisted by whose definition?:confused: :confused:

[equinox137]

By Jefferson's, to start with....

[retired]

By Jefferson's, to start with....

Jefferson twisted his own definitions?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[equinox137]

No, that's not what I said....come on now :rolleyes:

[damode]

In a region and era when religious diversity meant having Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopians, and others, - in a time when sphagetti didn't exist as a dish in America, what other "God" could he have been referring to?

Im sure Jefferson wasnt an ignorant person. Im sure he studied many other cultures and societies with a whole mess of different religions and gods.

Im also sure he wasnt also an idiot. If he wanted to make sure he was talking about a christian god, he wouldve written it down.

Now you can say, sure Jefferson couldve been a christian, and maybe he was talking about a christian god and wanted it to printed it down unto the first papers of this country.

but

That the "god" isnt specified might be that, one of the many founding fathers might have objected to the christian god in the first place, or might not have believed in it.

So after much debate they couldve just gone with the general form of "God" so everyone can be happy :)

So then this way of seeing it might also back up the people that continue to disagree to the claims that this country was supposed to be built as a christian nation.

But of course, well never know because none of us were there so everything is pretty much speculation.

[equinox137]

Im sure Jefferson wasnt an ignorant person. Im sure he studied many other cultures and societies with a whole mess of different religions and gods.

Im also sure he wasnt also an idiot. If he wanted to make sure he was talking about a christian god, he wouldve written it down.


I never said he is ignorant or an idiot. He did study many religions and technically, he ordered the first American attack on a Muslim nation ever (the Barbary States) while he was President, because he understood Muslims quite well. In fact, he thought the policies of Presidents Washington and Adams of paying the Muslims tribute was BS.

Now I'm not a Christian, but the last time I checked, Christians don't refer to God as the "Christian" God.


Now you can say, sure Jefferson couldve been a christian, and maybe he was talking about a christian god and wanted it to printed it down unto the first papers of this country.

but

That the "god" isnt specified might be that, one of the many founding fathers might have objected to the christian god in the first place, or might not have believed in it.


You're mistaking 21st Century multiculturalism for what occurred in the 18th Century, before the concept existed. That's similar to claiming Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal" when he had passed away before the idiologies of modern liberalism or conservatism existed.


So after much debate they couldve just gone with the general form of "God" so everyone can be happy :)

So then this way of seeing it might also back up the people that continue to disagree to the claims that this country was supposed to be built as a christian nation.

But of course, well never know because none of us were there so everything is pretty much speculation.


I don't believe it was debated very much at all at the time. It was probably second nature as the the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers were plainly clear. As SRT said in another thread, you need to quit digesting the revisionist manure that your professors have been shoveling you.

[damode]

Seriously, wassup with the university professor bashings lol.

Im not digesting nothing. One of the first things ive learned, and this came from my parents was to always question everything and try to figure things out yourself rather than just accepting the status quo because "they say so" or because "everyone believes it like this".

And trust me, ive always been a little out there :)

My freshman year in college, str8 outta highschool i approached my sociology professor and i asked him a question about how leaders are made and how they attract the masses.

So he explains to me what are the basics and stuff. Then i add on that i noticed that Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ had several simliarities on how they manipulated and made masses of people love them and follow them.

The professor just looked at me with a horrible face and never replied to my statement :)

[equinox137]

Seriously, wassup with the university professor bashings lol.

Im not digesting nothing. One of the first things ive learned, and this came from my parents was to always question everything and try to figure things out yourself rather than just accepting the status quo because "they say so" or because "everyone believes it like this".

And trust me, ive always been a little out there :)

My freshman year in college, str8 outta highschool i approached my sociology professor and i asked him a question about how leaders are made and how they attract the masses.

So he explains to me what are the basics and stuff. Then i add on that i noticed that Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ had several simliarities on how they manipulated and made masses of people love them and follow them.

The professor just looked at me with a horrible face and never replied to my statement :)


Well, I guess that sums it up then. You've always been a little out there....:D

[damode]

Yea, in family gatherings, social functions or anywhere where politics and religion comes up.

Im a cool guy until those topics come up, and before i know, everyone is looking at me hoping i will just disappear.

~~~~~

My uncle was a mason for like 35 years, and he taught me alot of weird stuff also, so ive always looked at the world differently than most people.

[FredFlash]

What documents?

Is there a reason you can't show us any evidence that Jefferson dated official documents with "in the year of Our Lord Christ" during his presidency? Were you lying or just cutting and pasting somebody else's claims, just because you want them to be true?

[equinox137]

Is there a reason you can't show us any evidence that Jefferson dated official documents with "in the year of Our Lord Christ" during his presidency? Were you lying or just cutting and pasting somebody else's claims, just because you want them to be true?

Honestly, I can't find the evidence, so I'll have to back off that claim.

Sorry, I didn't see this until tonight.

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson implied that he was a Deist in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803. He also implied that he was a Rational Christian, whatever that was.


I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not

forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,

that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present

dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease

neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many

to a character they have too hastily rejected.

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html



Jefferson's religion is irrelevant to the meaning of the Constitution as regards religion's relationship to civil authority, because they are not a natural and probable sign of the will of the legislator at the time the Constitution was made. The best indicators, of the will of the men who gave us the Constitution, are the words they used, or didn't use, in the document, regarding the subject matter of religion and its relationship to the government.

[FredFlash]

Before the Revolutionary War, he was a member of the Anglican church.

Is that relevant to the meaning of the Constitution as it regards religion and its relationship to civil government?

After the War, he regularly attended church services ...

How do you know?

...he authorized federal funding for missionary work among Kaskaskia Indians in 1803...

Why, the Kaskaskia Indians were already Catholics in 1803? Why didn't he authorize federal funding for missionary work among other Indian tribes?

He authorized the War Department and the Treasury Building to be used for church services.

Is there any evidence to support your claim?

he rejected the deity of Christ at the end of his lifetime and mistrusted religious leadership throughout his life, probably from abuses of power of religious authorities throughout history.

Are you claiming that at one time he believed Christ was a deity? If so, upon what evidence?

[equinox137]

Thomas Jefferson implied that he was a Deist in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803. He also implied that he was a Rational Christian, whatever that was.


I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not

forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,

that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present

dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease

neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many

to a character they have too hastily rejected.

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html



Jefferson's religion is irrelevant to the meaning of the Constitution as regards religion's relationship to civil authority, because they are not a natural and probable sign of the will of the legislator at the time the Constitution was made. The best indicators, of the will of the men who gave us the Constitution, are the words they used, or didn't use, in the document, regarding the subject matter of religion and its relationship to the government.

Umm....I must have missed the "implication" that he was a deist in that quote.

[equinox137]

duplicate post

[FredFlash]

Yes, because he was compelled to be a member of the established church prior to the Revolution, which no doubt shaped his opinion on the relationship between church...

What makes Jefferson's opinions on the relationship between church and state a more "natural and probable" indication, of the intent of the men who wrote and gave legal effect to the Constitution, than the actual words they put in the Constitution?

All I can do is cite internet sources that will say the same thing. I'm afraid I don't I have time to go to the library to find and cite actual text sources. On the flipside, is there anything to disprove the claim?

Very well, let's assume that President Jefferson did as you claim. How does an act by a President, done over ten years after a law was made, constitute a more "natural and probable" indication of the "original intent" of the law, than the words the legislator used in the law to express its will?

What difference does it make? The funding was authorized.

You seem to be implying that the will of the men who made the Constitution was for the federal government to fund missionaries.

As above, is there any evidence to disprove the claim.

First, you neglected to inform your audience that the so called "funding of missionaries" was a provision in a treaty between the Indians and the United States; that a Catholic priest was already living and working with the Indians; that the so called "funding" was for the priest "to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature"; and that the so called "funding" was part of a financial package demanded by the Indians that was "considered" under the treaty, "as a full and ample compensation for the relinquishment [of "the extensive tract of country which of right belongs to them and which was possessed by their ancestors for many generations"] made to the United States in the first article [of the treaty]."

It might be more accurate to say that Jefferson recommended that the Senate ratify the purchase of an extensive tract of land in Ohio for a very low price which included $700 for the instruction of the Kaskaskia children "in the rudiments of literature."

Yes. I'm also claiming his religous beliefs changed over time. I'll compile the barrage of quotations and writings at a later time.

What do Jefferson's religious beliefs have to do with the meaning of the Constitution's provisions regarding religion?

What I am against is the revisionist history that the left is spouting to support whatever BS they come up with.

What exactly is the "revisionist history" and the "BS of the left" that you are talking about, my dear friend?

[SRT936]

What makes Jefferson's opinions on the relationship between church and state a more "natural and probable" indication, of the intent of the men who wrote and gave legal effect to the Constitution, than the actual words they put in the Constitution?

Out of curiosity, where, exactly, does the seperation of church and state appear in the Constitution? I must have missed the first couple hundred times I read it.

[retired]

Out of curiosity, where, exactly, does the seperation of church and state appear in the Constitution? I must have missed the first couple hundred times I read it.

It doesn't just like many other rights don't appear with exact wording.:) :)

[equinox137]

Or other issues people claim as "rights".......

[equinox137]

What makes Jefferson's opinions on the relationship between church and state a more "natural and probable" indication, of the intent of the men who wrote and gave legal effect to the Constitution, than the actual words they put in the Constitution?


I hate to point this out, but your over-use of commas made your question a little hard to read. I had to read it over at least five times to try to understand your question.

To answer the question as I believe I understand it:
Nothing - since Jefferson was not involved in the crafting of the Constitution, was against it's ratification, and even pushed for the adoption of unconstitutional the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" (which claimed any state could decide the constituionality of federal laws), I'd say Jefferson's opinions generally don't mean squat.


Very well, let's assume that President Jefferson did as you claim. How does an act by a President, done over ten years after a law was made, constitute a more "natural and probable" indication of the "original intent" of the law, than the words the legislator used in the law to express its will?


When has any executive act, regardless of of the timing, meant more the than the wording of the law? That's basic Constitution 101.


You seem to be implying that the will of the men who made the Constitution was for the federal government to fund missionaries.


Nope. I've said repeatedly in other threads that the federal government was created primarily for national defense and the enforcement of federal law (which mainly concerned itself with international trade at the time.)

Let's remember another thing - Jefferson wasn't involved in the making of the Constitution. He was not at the Constitutional Convention, nor was he a signer. He was an anti-Federalist, meaning that he was against the Constitution, before he and Madison formed the Repbulican Party.


First, you neglected to inform your audience that the so called "funding of missionaries" was a provision in a treaty between the Indians and the United States; that a Catholic priest was already living and working with the Indians; that the so called "funding" was for the priest "to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature"; and that the so called "funding" was part of a financial package demanded by the Indians that was "considered" under the treaty, "as a full and ample compensation for the relinquishment [of "the extensive tract of country which of right belongs to them and which was possessed by their ancestors for many generations"] made to the United States in the first article [of the treaty]."

It might be more accurate to say that Jefferson recommended that the Senate ratify the purchase of an extensive tract of land in Ohio for a very low price which included $700 for the instruction of the Kaskaskia children "in the rudiments of literature."


No, it wouldn't be more "accurate" to say that. It would be very basic generalization, in fact almost a cover up to say that.

By the way, the "rudiments of literature" consisted of mainly religious literature at the time anyway. Colonial children were taught how to read so they could learn to read the Bible.


What do Jefferson's religious beliefs have to do with the meaning of the Constitution's provisions regarding religion?


You're joking, right? The ACLU has been all over Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter as a justification for their church/state stance and legal arguments which usually fall against religion in general. The left opened that door - it's too late to close it now.


What exactly is the "revisionist history" and the "BS of the left" that you are talking about, my dear friend?


Revisionist history....the tendancy of today's historical scholars to distort historical events and persons to meet an alternative prespective. For example, the ridiculous claim by some of today's "historians" that firearms weren't widespread in Colonial America.

"BS of the left".......claims that Jefferson was a "liberal" (when modern liberalism didn't exist in his lifetime) in order to somehow give their views meaning or make them appear less radical; ridicuolous claims that other founding fathers such as George Washington were deists (Washington was a devout Episcopilian), claims that homosexualty was widely accepted in Colonial America (when male homosexualty was a captial offense in most colonies/commonwealths/states); claims that America was always multi-cultural (when in reality there were primarily whites, black slaves, and indians living here at the time); claims that America was religiously diverse, when "diverse" meant having Anglicans, Presbeteryans, Quakers, and Catholics within 1,000 miles of each other - yes there was a Jewish minority here at the time, but there really were a minority.....things like that

[FredFlash]

Out of curiosity, where, exactly, does the seperation of church and state appear in the Constitution? I must have missed the first couple hundred times I read it.

Where, in the U. S. Constitution, among the limited powers delegated to the federal government, do you find a grant, by the people, of authority over religion, to their political rulers?

[FredFlash]

...since Jefferson was not involved in the crafting of the Constitution, was against it's ratification, and even pushed for the adoption of unconstitutional the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" (which claimed any state could decide the constituionality of federal laws), I'd say Jefferson's opinions generally don't mean squat.

What about Jefferson's writings, prior to the making of the Constitution, on the "subject matters" covered by the U. S. Constitution? One of the well established common law rules of statutory construction as of 1787 was that "words [in a legal statute] are always to be understood as having a regard [for the subject matter]; for [the subject matter] is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, [as he made the law] and all his expressions directed to that end."

For example, the word "religion" in the establishment clause is ambiguous. If the "subject matter" of "an establishment of religion" is "supposed to [have] be[en] in the eye of the legislator", when it made the establishment clause, wouldn't it be proper to examine the Virginia Religion Law of 1786, drafted by Jefferson, as one of the previous writings on the subject matter, for signs to the precise meaning of the word "religion" in the establishment clause?

[FredFlash]

By the way, the "rudiments of literature" consisted of mainly religious literature at the time anyway.

No it didn't.

Colonial children were taught how to read so they could learn to read the Bible.

1803 was not the colonial period, dude.

The ACLU has been all over Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter as a justification for their church/state stance...

The ACLU never uses that argument.

Revisionist history....the tendancy of today's historical scholars to distort historical events and persons to meet an alternative prespective. For example, the ridiculous claim by some of today's "historians" that firearms weren't widespread in Colonial America.

We're on the subject of separation of church and state, not firearms.

BTW, Is a well regulated militia still necessary to the defense of the state?

"BS of the left".......claims that Jefferson was a "liberal" (when modern liberalism didn't exist in his lifetime) in order to somehow give their views meaning or make them appear less radical; ridicuolous claims that other founding fathers such as George Washington were deists (Washington was a devout Episcopilian), claims that homosexualty was widely accepted in Colonial America (when male homosexualty was a captial offense in most colonies/commonwealths/states); claims that America was always multi-cultural (when in reality there were primarily whites, black slaves, and indians living here at the time); claims that America was religiously diverse, when "diverse" meant having Anglicans, Presbeteryans, Quakers, and Catholics within 1,000 miles of each other - yes there was a Jewish minority here at the time, but there really were a minority.....things like that

Is separation of church and state liberal BS?

PS: If George Washington was a devote Protestant Episcopalian in 1787, he would have subscribed to the church's doctrine that the civil magistrate has no jurisdiction over purely sacred things which means separation of religion and civil government.

[equinox137]

Where, in the U. S. Constitution, among the limited powers delegated to the federal government, do you find a grant, by the people, of authority over religion, to their political rulers?

No one is arguing for any American political "rulers" to have authority over religion.

[equinox137]

No it didn't.


Yes it did, especially when performing missionary work among the Indian tribes. I highly doubt they were bringing Adam Smith or John Locke with them. I suggest checking out A Writer's Guide to Colonial America by Dave Taylor (1 (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Guide-Everyday-Colonial-America/dp/0898799422)). It is very detailed about the many aspects of life in 18th Century America, including among many other things, why children were taught to read during the period.


1803 was not the colonial period, dude.


Dude? First you're using big words, then you're using "dude"? :confused:

I'm aware that 1803 wasn't in the colonial period. The point is that the opinions of those that wrote the Constitution and contributed to the Bill of Rights were shaped during the colonial period.

On a side note, tricorne hats were still in fashion in 1803.


The ACLU never uses that argument.


Are you on the same planet as us? Are we talking about the same ACLU?


We're on the subject of separation of church and state, not firearms.

BTW, Is a well regulated militia still necessary to the defense of the state?


You asked for examples of revisionist history. I gave you examples

Well regulated militia.....Yes. The Kent State Shootings, the LA Riots, and Hurricane Katrina are excellent examples of why.


Is separation of church and state liberal BS?


No. I've already made that clear.


PS: If Washington was a devote Protestant Episcopalian in 1787, he would have subscribed to their doctrine that the civil magistrate has no jurisdiction over purely sacred things which means separation of religion and civil government.


So what are you suggesting?

[equinox137]

What about Jefferson's writings, prior to the making of the Constitution, on the "subject matters" covered by the U. S. Constitution? One of the well established common law rules of statutory construction as of 1787 was that "words [in a legal statute] are always to be understood as having a regard [for the subject matter]; for [the subject matter] is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, [as he made the law] and all his expressions directed to that end."


Again, I have to ask what your point is, dude.


For example, the word "religion" in the establishment clause is ambiguous. If the "subject matter" of "an establishment of religion" is "supposed to [have] be[en] in the eye of the legislator", when it made the establishment clause, wouldn't it be proper to examine the Virginia Religion Law of 1786, drafted by Jefferson, as one of the previous writings on the subject matter, for signs to the precise meaning of the word "religion" in the establishment clause?

No. You're trying to make a simple concept complicated. The word "religion" is not ambiguous, even in the establishment clause - it was pretty simple. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was not written by people that attempted to overcomplicate their meaning by using cryptic language that the average person wouldn't understand. In other words, it was written in plain english. 35 out of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were lawyers - 63% -and none of those 35 were actually in practice.

You're also misstating the Virginia Religion Law of 1786 for your audience. It was drafted to "de-establish" the Anglican Church of Virginia. In order words, to get the church off the government/public dole and to prevent citizens from being required to have membership at the same. That's it.

[SRT936]

Where, in the U. S. Constitution, among the limited powers delegated to the federal government, do you find a grant, by the people, of authority over religion, to their political rulers?

I'm glad Equinox was able to translate this mess and respond, because frankly, I've read it 10 times and have NO IDEA what you're trying to say.

[FredFlash]

When has any executive act, regardless of of the timing, meant more the than the wording of the law? That's basic Constitution 101.

Executive acts, such as President Washington supposedly adding "so help me God" to his oath of office, which is a myth, mean more than the actual words of the founding document of our republic when right wing nuts like Justice A. Scalia interpret the Constitution as it pertains to religion and its relationship to the state, .

In his dissent in MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Scalia claims that the model of the relationship between church and state adopted by America, was based, not on the words of the Constitution as construed by the well established common law rules of statutory construction in effect during the founding era, but rather on certain subjectively selected actions of federal civil magistrates, including the myth that George Washington added the concluding words “so help me God” to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution.

MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. (03-1693)
354 F.3d 438, affirmed.

Scalia, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 03—1693
McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

[June 27, 2005]

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, and with whom Justice Kennedy joins as to Parts II and III, dissenting.

I would uphold McCreary County and Pulaski County, Kentucky’s (hereinafter Counties) displays of the Ten Commandments. I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false; second, why today’s opinion extends the scope of that falsehood even beyond prior cases; and third, why even on the basis of the Court’s false assumptions the judgment here is wrong.

On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential addresses often do, with the prayer “God bless America.” The next afternoon I was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after extending his profound condolences for my country’s loss, sadly observed “How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address ‘God bless ______.’ It is of course absolutely forbidden.”

That is one model of the relationship between church and state–a model spread across Europe by the armies of Napoleon, and reflected in the Constitution of France, which begins “France is [a] . . . secular . . . Republic.” France Const., Art. 1, in 7 Constitutions of the Countries of the World, p. 1 (G. Flanz ed. 2000). Religion is to be strictly excluded from the public forum. This is not, and never was, the model adopted by America. George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words “so help me God.” See Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004).



In his dissent, Scalia goes on to make it clear that he believes the following government actions supercede the words of the Constitution.

1) The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

2) The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. (This is another myth)

3) The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.

4) The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim “ a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.”

5) President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people “ ‘to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be”...thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today.

6) The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

[equinox137]

Executive acts, such as President Washington supposedly adding "so help me God" to his oath of office, which is a myth, mean more than the actual words of the founding document of our republic when right wing nuts like Justice A. Scalia interpret the Constitution as it pertains to religion and its relationship to the state, .

In his dissent in MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Scalia claims that the model of the relationship between church and state adopted by America, was based, not on the words of the Constitution as construed by the well established common law rules of statutory construction in effect during the founding era, but rather on certain subjectively selected actions of federal civil magistrates, including the myth that George Washington added the concluding words “so help me God” to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution.

MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. (03-1693)
354 F.3d 438, affirmed.

Scalia, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 03—1693
McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

[June 27, 2005]

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, and with whom Justice Kennedy joins as to Parts II and III, dissenting.

I would uphold McCreary County and Pulaski County, Kentucky’s (hereinafter Counties) displays of the Ten Commandments. I shall discuss first, why the Court’s oft repeated assertion that the government cannot favor religious practice is false; second, why today’s opinion extends the scope of that falsehood even beyond prior cases; and third, why even on the basis of the Court’s false assumptions the judgment here is wrong.

On September 11, 2001 I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference of judges and lawyers, principally from Europe and the United States. That night and the next morning virtually all of the participants watched, in their hotel rooms, the address to the Nation by the President of the United States concerning the murderous attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in which thousands of Americans had been killed. The address ended, as Presidential addresses often do, with the prayer “God bless America.” The next afternoon I was approached by one of the judges from a European country, who, after extending his profound condolences for my country’s loss, sadly observed “How I wish that the Head of State of my country, at a similar time of national tragedy and distress, could conclude his address ‘God bless ______.’ It is of course absolutely forbidden.”

That is one model of the relationship between church and state–a model spread across Europe by the armies of Napoleon, and reflected in the Constitution of France, which begins “France is [a] . . . secular . . . Republic.” France Const., Art. 1, in 7 Constitutions of the Countries of the World, p. 1 (G. Flanz ed. 2000). Religion is to be strictly excluded from the public forum. This is not, and never was, the model adopted by America. George Washington added to the form of Presidential oath prescribed by Art. II, §1, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the concluding words “so help me God.” See Blomquist, The Presidential Oath, the American National Interest and a Call for Presiprudence, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 1, 34 (2004).



In his dissent, Scalia goes on to make it clear that he believes the following government actions supercede the words of the Constitution.

1) The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

2) The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. (This is another myth)

3) The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.

4) The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim “ a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.”

5) President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people “ ‘to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be”...thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today.

6) The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

1). What evidence do you have that anything above you have alleged to be "myths" are in fact - myths? In fact, anything you claim to be "myths" at all, such as the David Barton claims?

2). I haven't seen a specific example in Scalia's writings, including what you supplied above that suggest that he belives anything legally supercedes the Constitution.

In a nutshell, the Founding Fathers were not the secular-progressives you are trying to make them out to be.

[FredFlash]

Yes it did, especially when performing missionary work among the Indian tribes. I highly doubt they were bringing Adam Smith or John Locke with them. I suggest checking out A Writer's Guide to Colonial America by Dave Taylor (1 (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Guide-Everyday-Colonial-America/dp/0898799422)). It is very detailed about the many aspects of life in 18th Century America, including among many other things, why children were taught to read during the period.

I suggest that you research the way the term "rudiments of literature" was used by James Madison and others in the late 1700's and early 1800's.

I'm aware that 1803 wasn't in the colonial period. The point is that the opinions of those that wrote the Constitution and contributed to the Bill of Rights were shaped during the colonial period.

The personal opinions of the men that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not the best signs of their will at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were made. The words they actually put into the two documents are the most natural and probable signs of their intent.

Are you on the same planet as us? Are we talking about the same ACLU?

Present some evidence to support your claim.

[FredFlash]

1). What evidence do you have that anything above you have alleged to be "myths" are in fact - myths? In fact, anything you claim to be "myths" at all, such as the David Barton claims?

The evidence that George Washington did not add "so help me God" to his oath is that not one of the eyewitness accounts of his swearing in ceremony indicate that he added the mythical words.

[FredFlash]

1). What evidence do you have that anything above you have alleged to be "myths" are in fact - myths? In fact, anything you claim to be "myths" at all, such as the David Barton claims?

The evidence that George Washington did not add "so help me God" to his oath is that not one of the eyewitness accounts of his swearing in ceremony indicate that he added the mythical words.

The evidence that the First U. S. Congress did not institute the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer, as claimed by Justice Burger, is that the evidence he cited to support his claim does not indicate that the Chaplains to Congress were elected to begin legislative sessions with prayer. Burger was either lying or just assumed, because it fit his personal views, that the Chaplains to Congress were elected to open legislative sessions with prayer.

Also, there is no mention whatsoever of opening prayer in the official records of the First U. S. Congress.

Also, there are no resolutions ordering opening prayer in the records of the First U. S. Congress.

Also, the first two Chaplains to the U. S. Congress did not have time to attend Congress each day. One was head of the largest Protestant Episcopal Religious Society in the U. S. The other was head of the large Dutch Reformed Religious Society of New York.

Also, the first Chaplains to the U. S. Congress were poorly compensated, suggesting that they didn't need the money and that the Chaplain to Congress positions were honorary or part-time.

Also, the rules of procedure for the House detailed the duties of every employee of the House, except the Chaplain, suggesting that the Chaplain had no routine duties, including the daily duty of saying an opening prayer.

Also, opening prayer in the U. S. Congress does not show up in the official records of the U. S. Congress until the 1850's.

[FredFlash]

I haven't seen a specific example in Scalia's writings, including what you supplied above that suggest that he belives anything legally supercedes the Constitution.


Scalia relies on "Historical practices", [not the words of the Constitution fairly construed according to the rules of statutory construction] to support his blatantly activist view that "the acknowledgment of a single Creator" is not "an establishment of a religion."

Historical practices [not the words of the Constitution reasonably construed according to the well established common law rules of statutory construction] thus demonstrate that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion

[FredFlash]

...the Founding Fathers were not the secular-progressives you are trying to make them out to be.

What do you mean by secular progressive?

[FredFlash]

If Washington was a devote Protestant Episcopalian in 1787, he would have subscribed to their doctrine that the civil magistrate has no jurisdiction over purely sacred things which means separation of religion and civil government.

So what are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that the most "natural and probable" signs/indications of the will of the legislator, regarding the relationship of religion to the federal government, at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were made the law of the land, are the actual words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fairly construed according to the well-established common law rules of statutory constriction, not the post enactment writings or official actions of President George Washington or any other individual.

The words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, construed according to the rules of statutory construction don't square with the personal views of Scalia, so, like being the judicial activist that he is, he just ignores the rules of statutory interpretation in play as of 1787 and goes skipping through the tulips like Tiny Tim looking for pretty flowers that suit his taste and stomps on those he doesn't care for.

For example, Scalia ignores the following:

That the First U. S. Congress dropped the traditional "so help me God" phrase from the oath of office for elected legislators.

That the same Congress that requested the President to issue a religious recommendation in 1789, did not ask for one the next year, or for the next twenty-two years.

That neither Congress, nor the advocates of the joint Congressional resolution requesting President Washington to issue a religious recommendation in 1789, ever claimed that the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations.

That President Washington never claimed that the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations.

That during the first twenty five-years of the republic, only eight executive religious recommendations were issued, and that during the next twenty-five years, no executive religious recommendations whatsoever were issued.

That the same Congress that requested the President to issue a religious recommendation in 1789 declined several requests to take an interest in the accuracy of Bibles being published in the United States.

That, from day one of the Republic, the U. S. Mail was transported on Sunday despite the claim of many that it violated one of the Ten Commandments. Also, post offices were required to open on Sunday.

That Congress, just twelve years after the Constitution was adopted, ratified a treaty which declared that the government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

That everyone, but the Federalists in the House of Representatives in 1811, knew that the establishment by law of the people's duty to contribute to the financial support two ministers of the gospel as Chaplains to Congress was not an expression consistent with Constitutional principles, but instead was an exception to Constitutional principles and was not legitimate legal precedent for civil government authority to provide for the support of religion, or for civil authority to merely make a law providing for the vestry of a church to have, by a two-thirds vote, power and authority to elect a minister and to remove a minister guilty of unworthy behavior or neglecting the duties of his office.

[equinox137]

Scalia relies on "Historical practices", [not the words of the Constitution fairly construed according to the rules of statutory construction] to support his blatantly activist view that "the acknowledgment of a single Creator" is not "an establishment of a religion."

Historical practices [not the words of the Constitution reasonably construed according to the well established common law rules of statutory construction] thus demonstrate that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion

Is this a fact, or is this your opinion of his legal views? Quite frankly, I don't read Scalia enough to know.

[equinox137]

The evidence that George Washington did not add "so help me God" to his oath is that not one of the eyewitness accounts of his swearing in ceremony indicate that he added the mythical words.

The evidence that the First U. S. Congress did not institute the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer, as claimed by Justice Burger, is that the evidence he cited to support his claim does not indicate that the Chaplains to Congress were elected to begin legislative sessions with prayer. Burger was either lying or just assumed, because it fit his personal views, that the Chaplains to Congress were elected to open legislative sessions with prayer.

Also, there is no mention whatsoever of opening prayer in the official records of the First U. S. Congress.

Also, there are no resolutions ordering opening prayer in the records of the First U. S. Congress.

Also, the first two Chaplains to the U. S. Congress did not have time to attend Congress each day. One was head of the largest Protestant Episcopal Religious Society in the U. S. The other was head of the large Dutch Reformed Religious Society of New York.

Also, the first Chaplains to the U. S. Congress were poorly compensated, suggesting that they didn't need the money and that the Chaplain to Congress positions were honorary or part-time.

Also, the rules of procedure for the House detailed the duties of every employee of the House, except the Chaplain, suggesting that the Chaplain had no routine duties, including the daily duty of saying an opening prayer.

Also, opening prayer in the U. S. Congress does not show up in the official records of the U. S. Congress until the 1850's.

Yes, I know you keep saying all of these are "myths." When are you going to back it up?

[equinox137]

What do you mean by secular progressive?

Basically it means "left-wing atheist".

[equinox137]

The evidence that George Washington did not add "so help me God" to his oath is that not one of the eyewitness accounts of his swearing in ceremony indicate that he added the mythical words.

Which eyewitness?

Who?

[equinox137]

I suggest that you research the way the term "rudiments of literature" was used by James Madison and others in the late 1700's and early 1800's.


See below.


The personal opinions of the men that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not the best signs of their will at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were made. The words they actually put into the two documents are the most natural and probable signs of their intent.


What? Don't you know how much of a cluster**** the Constitutional Convention was because of the diverse opinions they held? For example: Benjamin Franklin openly spoke for a unicamerial congress. (1 (http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/journals/luminary_v2_n1_p4.html)). This same source also calls into doubt your arguments about Madison & religion.


Present some evidence to support your claim.


Here you go:
http://www.aclumontereycounty.org/contest2004_essay_h1.html
http://www.aclukswmo.org/About/opinion1.htm

[equinox137]

1) The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”


You're claiming this didn't happen?


2) The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. (This is another myth)


Wrong. (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 1983 (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marsh.html))


3) The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate.


That did happen, as noted in Marsh.


4) The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim “ a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favours of Almighty God.”


This happened as well.


5) President Washington offered the first Thanksgiving Proclamation shortly thereafter, devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people “ ‘to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be”...thus beginning a tradition of offering gratitude to God that continues today.


So did this.


6) The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."


And this....

The difference is that Scalia, as a Supreme Court justice, is paid to interpret the Constitution, as we all know. To do that, it is sometimes necessary to understand and research the other writings and practices of the Founding Fathers to buttress an opinion or a dissent. The Federalist Papers have been used for that purpose as well.