Separation of church and state?
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Journey: You said "Placing a nativity scene, in the public square, to celebrate a Federal Holiday, in no way constitutes 'making a law respecting the establishment of religion'".
Certainly it does. Didn't the government have to pass a law funding the cutting of the grass around the nativity scene, didn't it have to pass a law acquiring the land for the public square to put the nativity scene on, didn't it have to pass a law issuing bonds to purchase the land for the public square for the nativity scene, and on and on? All of these laws have the effect of establishing state involvement in the establishment of a state religion when they have the effect of favoring a particular religion. The justices are not blind to the spiritual roots of our nation. Justice Douglas specifically cited the spiritual background of the United States in his opinion that permitted students to leave a high school campus for religious instruction during the school day, even though the court had earlier held that such instruction could not be held on school property. Douglas wrote that it was proper to accommodate the religious needs of citizens so as not to favor those with no religion, but he made it clear that the state cannot impose a religion on those with other, or no, religion. I know that the evangelical right hates this because it interferes with the evangelical agenda, but many years of constitutional scholars and judges are pretty unanimous on this one. One can insist that it just ain't so, but it is.[/QUOTE]
Certainly it does. Didn't the government have to pass a law funding the cutting of the grass around the nativity scene, didn't it have to pass a law acquiring the land for the public square to put the nativity scene on, didn't it have to pass a law issuing bonds to purchase the land for the public square for the nativity scene, and on and on? All of these laws have the effect of establishing state involvement in the establishment of a state religion when they have the effect of favoring a particular religion. The justices are not blind to the spiritual roots of our nation. Justice Douglas specifically cited the spiritual background of the United States in his opinion that permitted students to leave a high school campus for religious instruction during the school day, even though the court had earlier held that such instruction could not be held on school property. Douglas wrote that it was proper to accommodate the religious needs of citizens so as not to favor those with no religion, but he made it clear that the state cannot impose a religion on those with other, or no, religion. I know that the evangelical right hates this because it interferes with the evangelical agenda, but many years of constitutional scholars and judges are pretty unanimous on this one. One can insist that it just ain't so, but it is.[/QUOTE]
1journeyman
Active Member
Geridoc, you're continuing to try to add words to the First Amendment.
As I said, the first Congress elected an Office of the Chaplain, for Heaven's sake. You going to try to argue they believed in Seperation of Church and State?
Spending money on decorations for a Federal holiday does not constitute "making a law". Heck, if you want to argue that then does the law establishing Christmas as a Federal Holiday violate the Constitution?
As I said, the first Congress elected an Office of the Chaplain, for Heaven's sake. You going to try to argue they believed in Seperation of Church and State?
Spending money on decorations for a Federal holiday does not constitute "making a law". Heck, if you want to argue that then does the law establishing Christmas as a Federal Holiday violate the Constitution?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2614105
Geridoc, you're continuing to try to add words to the First Amendment.
As I said, the first Congress elected an Office of the Chaplain, for Heaven's sake. You going to try to argue they believed in Seperation of Church and State?
They did believe in separation of church and state, but not in the elimination of spirituality and religion.
Spending money on decorations for a Federal holiday does not constitute "making a law". Heck, if you want to argue that then does the law establishing Christmas as a Federal Holiday violate the Constitution?
Try to spend that money without passing a law to do it. Establishing Christmas as a national holiday might be in violation, perhaps not. It depends on a number of things, including the intent of the law. If the intent was to celebrate Christmas, then it would be in violation. However, under one part of the Lemon test, as I understand it, if the intent was to provide a day off from work and not to establish a religious holiday, then it might be a permitted activity.
http:///forum/post/2614105
Geridoc, you're continuing to try to add words to the First Amendment.
As I said, the first Congress elected an Office of the Chaplain, for Heaven's sake. You going to try to argue they believed in Seperation of Church and State?
They did believe in separation of church and state, but not in the elimination of spirituality and religion.
Spending money on decorations for a Federal holiday does not constitute "making a law". Heck, if you want to argue that then does the law establishing Christmas as a Federal Holiday violate the Constitution?
Try to spend that money without passing a law to do it. Establishing Christmas as a national holiday might be in violation, perhaps not. It depends on a number of things, including the intent of the law. If the intent was to celebrate Christmas, then it would be in violation. However, under one part of the Lemon test, as I understand it, if the intent was to provide a day off from work and not to establish a religious holiday, then it might be a permitted activity.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2614199
They did believe in separation of church and state, but not in the elimination of spirituality and religion.
Try to spend that money without passing a law to do it. Establishing Christmas as a national holiday might be in violation, perhaps not. It depends on a number of things, including the intent of the law. If the intent was to celebrate Christmas, then it would be in violation. However, under one part of the Lemon test, as I understand it, if the intent was to provide a day off from work and not to establish a religious holiday, then it might be a permitted activity.
How could they believe in "seperation of Church and State" and elect a Chaplain to lead them in prayer before going into session??
Local municipalities (the ones often sued by the ACLU for Nativity scenes) often have decorations donated, or purchase Christmas decorations with general funds, etc. No law is passed.
Geridoc, once again I must say I'm all for the legal seperation of church and state. I'm just not for claiming the Constitution says something it doesn't. I believe sincerely in the 10th Amendment. Too many issues are being "assumed to be said" in the Constitution these days.
http:///forum/post/2614199
They did believe in separation of church and state, but not in the elimination of spirituality and religion.
Try to spend that money without passing a law to do it. Establishing Christmas as a national holiday might be in violation, perhaps not. It depends on a number of things, including the intent of the law. If the intent was to celebrate Christmas, then it would be in violation. However, under one part of the Lemon test, as I understand it, if the intent was to provide a day off from work and not to establish a religious holiday, then it might be a permitted activity.
How could they believe in "seperation of Church and State" and elect a Chaplain to lead them in prayer before going into session??
Local municipalities (the ones often sued by the ACLU for Nativity scenes) often have decorations donated, or purchase Christmas decorations with general funds, etc. No law is passed.
Geridoc, once again I must say I'm all for the legal seperation of church and state. I'm just not for claiming the Constitution says something it doesn't. I believe sincerely in the 10th Amendment. Too many issues are being "assumed to be said" in the Constitution these days.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2614206
How could they believe in "seperation of Church and State" and elect a Chaplain to lead them in prayer before going into session??
Local municipalities (the ones often sued by the ACLU for Nativity scenes) often have decorations donated, or purchase Christmas decorations with general funds, etc. No law is passed.
Geridoc, once again I must say I'm all for the legal seperation of church and state. I'm just not for claiming the Constitution says something it doesn't. I believe sincerely in the 10th Amendment. Too many issues are being "assumed to be said" in the Constitution these days.
This is why I say that it is part of our culture, prayer before sessions of congress, chaplins in the military, for congress, benidictions ect.
http:///forum/post/2614206
How could they believe in "seperation of Church and State" and elect a Chaplain to lead them in prayer before going into session??
Local municipalities (the ones often sued by the ACLU for Nativity scenes) often have decorations donated, or purchase Christmas decorations with general funds, etc. No law is passed.
Geridoc, once again I must say I'm all for the legal seperation of church and state. I'm just not for claiming the Constitution says something it doesn't. I believe sincerely in the 10th Amendment. Too many issues are being "assumed to be said" in the Constitution these days.
This is why I say that it is part of our culture, prayer before sessions of congress, chaplins in the military, for congress, benidictions ect.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2614211
This is why I say that it is part of our culture, prayer before sessions of congress, chaplins in the military, for congress, benidictions ect.
That is pretty much what the Supreme Court said when it refused to outlaw a chaplain's invocation in the Nebraska Senate. They said that it was not a religious event, and had a long history, so it was OK. Note that while having a chaplain give an invocation in Congress has no religious intent (according to the Supremes), there was a near riot led by Christian fundamentalists when a Muslim cleric was invited to give the invocation last year.
http:///forum/post/2614211
This is why I say that it is part of our culture, prayer before sessions of congress, chaplins in the military, for congress, benidictions ect.
That is pretty much what the Supreme Court said when it refused to outlaw a chaplain's invocation in the Nebraska Senate. They said that it was not a religious event, and had a long history, so it was OK. Note that while having a chaplain give an invocation in Congress has no religious intent (according to the Supremes), there was a near riot led by Christian fundamentalists when a Muslim cleric was invited to give the invocation last year.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2614619
That is pretty much what the Supreme Court said when it refused to outlaw a chaplain's invocation in the Nebraska Senate. They said that it was not a religious event, and had a long history, so it was OK. Note that while having a chaplain give an invocation in Congress has no religious intent (according to the Supremes), there was a near riot led by Christian fundamentalists when a Muslim cleric was invited to give the invocation last year.
If prayer before sessions and an appointed official Chaplain doesn't blur the lines then we really have nothing further to discuss. To argue "tradition" makes it ok furthers my point. We've traditionally had the Christian religion in government since our founding.
http:///forum/post/2614619
That is pretty much what the Supreme Court said when it refused to outlaw a chaplain's invocation in the Nebraska Senate. They said that it was not a religious event, and had a long history, so it was OK. Note that while having a chaplain give an invocation in Congress has no religious intent (according to the Supremes), there was a near riot led by Christian fundamentalists when a Muslim cleric was invited to give the invocation last year.
If prayer before sessions and an appointed official Chaplain doesn't blur the lines then we really have nothing further to discuss. To argue "tradition" makes it ok furthers my point. We've traditionally had the Christian religion in government since our founding.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2614748
If prayer before sessions and an appointed official Chaplain doesn't blur the lines then we really have nothing further to discuss. To argue "tradition" makes it ok furthers my point. We've traditionally had the Christian religion in government since our founding.
But it is important to note that the Court differentiated non-religious activities (like an invocation before the Senate meeting) from activities with religious intent, like prayer before a class in public school. I have always been bothered by the Court's "tradition" argument, since we have traditionally done many things (like keep slaves, put people in stocks, etc.) that would be unacceptable today. It does blur the lines, which is the problem - the law abhors blurred lines since that is where judges step in and make law.
http:///forum/post/2614748
If prayer before sessions and an appointed official Chaplain doesn't blur the lines then we really have nothing further to discuss. To argue "tradition" makes it ok furthers my point. We've traditionally had the Christian religion in government since our founding.
But it is important to note that the Court differentiated non-religious activities (like an invocation before the Senate meeting) from activities with religious intent, like prayer before a class in public school. I have always been bothered by the Court's "tradition" argument, since we have traditionally done many things (like keep slaves, put people in stocks, etc.) that would be unacceptable today. It does blur the lines, which is the problem - the law abhors blurred lines since that is where judges step in and make law.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613386
I am certainly not a lawyer, and this may be too simplistic, but isn't there a clause in the Preamble to the effect that the Constitution is to"..promote the general welfare..". Seems to me that national health care could well come in under that clause as an enumerated power, but I'd like to hear from a constitutional lawyer about that.
No, national healthcare would PROVIDE (as in paid for by the federal gov't) for the general welfare.
The left seems to think of the preamble as this:
PROMOTE the common defense ( Obama has already promised to "slow" developement of new defense systems), and PROVIDE the general welfare.
One could argue money spent on stem cell research is "promoting" the general welfare, but the feds paying for or "providing" national health care is not an enumerated power, and a power left to the states by default in the Constitution.
http:///forum/post/2613386
I am certainly not a lawyer, and this may be too simplistic, but isn't there a clause in the Preamble to the effect that the Constitution is to"..promote the general welfare..". Seems to me that national health care could well come in under that clause as an enumerated power, but I'd like to hear from a constitutional lawyer about that.
No, national healthcare would PROVIDE (as in paid for by the federal gov't) for the general welfare.
The left seems to think of the preamble as this:
PROMOTE the common defense ( Obama has already promised to "slow" developement of new defense systems), and PROVIDE the general welfare.
One could argue money spent on stem cell research is "promoting" the general welfare, but the feds paying for or "providing" national health care is not an enumerated power, and a power left to the states by default in the Constitution.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2615633
No, national healthcare would PROVIDE (as in paid for by the federal gov't) for the general welfare.
The left seems to think of the preamble as this:
PROMOTE the common defense ( Obama has already promised to "slow" developement of new defense systems), and PROVIDE the general welfare.
One could argue money spent on stem cell research is "promoting" the general welfare, but the feds paying for or "providing" national health care is not an enumerated power, and a power left to the states by default in the Constitution.
So you think that improving the health of the populace would not have the effect of promoting the general welfare? This issue has already been decided by minds far sharper than yours or mine - social security, medicare for example. It is hard to argue that the general welfare is not improved by these things.
http:///forum/post/2615633
No, national healthcare would PROVIDE (as in paid for by the federal gov't) for the general welfare.
The left seems to think of the preamble as this:
PROMOTE the common defense ( Obama has already promised to "slow" developement of new defense systems), and PROVIDE the general welfare.
One could argue money spent on stem cell research is "promoting" the general welfare, but the feds paying for or "providing" national health care is not an enumerated power, and a power left to the states by default in the Constitution.
So you think that improving the health of the populace would not have the effect of promoting the general welfare? This issue has already been decided by minds far sharper than yours or mine - social security, medicare for example. It is hard to argue that the general welfare is not improved by these things.
reefraff
Active Member
If the government ever does pass a socialized health care system it will end up in the Supreme Court. I wouldn't bet which way that might go. If we can be forced into Social Security I don't see how they could rule that a government healthcare system would be unconstitutional.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Back to the religion discussion.
Here are quotes from the FOUNDING FATHERS from letters they wrote to each other in the beginning of this country.
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Here are quotes from the FOUNDING FATHERS from letters they wrote to each other in the beginning of this country.
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
darthtang aw
Active Member
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”
darthtang aw
Active Member
James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]
I have a ton more....Anyone that believes our founding fathers did not worship God needs to do more research. Anyone that believes these guys wanted COMPLETE separation of church and state in the constitution needs to do more research. Religion during their time was encouraged within the halls of congress and the white house. Their fundamental point was to NEVER go the road England did by giving the Church of England control over the government.
That is all. The government is in the control of the people...all the people. Not a pope, not a shah, not a moola, not a cardinal...the people. It just so happenbs many of those people in control happen to be religious.....but MANY religions they are.
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]
I have a ton more....Anyone that believes our founding fathers did not worship God needs to do more research. Anyone that believes these guys wanted COMPLETE separation of church and state in the constitution needs to do more research. Religion during their time was encouraged within the halls of congress and the white house. Their fundamental point was to NEVER go the road England did by giving the Church of England control over the government.
That is all. The government is in the control of the people...all the people. Not a pope, not a shah, not a moola, not a cardinal...the people. It just so happenbs many of those people in control happen to be religious.....but MANY religions they are.
seagoblin333
Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2616632
Anyone that believes our founding fathers did not worship God needs to do more research. Anyone that believes these guys wanted COMPLETE separation of church and state in the constitution needs to do more research. Religion during their time was encouraged within the halls of congress and the white house. Their fundamental point was to NEVER go the road England did by giving the Church of England control over the government.
That is all. The government is in the control of the people...all the people. Not a pope, not a shah, not a moola, not a cardinal...the people. It just so happenbs many of those people in control happen to be religious.....but MANY religions they are.
Thats a good point...
http:///forum/post/2616632
Anyone that believes our founding fathers did not worship God needs to do more research. Anyone that believes these guys wanted COMPLETE separation of church and state in the constitution needs to do more research. Religion during their time was encouraged within the halls of congress and the white house. Their fundamental point was to NEVER go the road England did by giving the Church of England control over the government.
That is all. The government is in the control of the people...all the people. Not a pope, not a shah, not a moola, not a cardinal...the people. It just so happenbs many of those people in control happen to be religious.....but MANY religions they are.
Thats a good point...
wangotango
Active Member
Originally Posted by Seagoblin333
http:///forum/post/2616898
Thats a good point...
I tried to stay out of this, but I have to agree with the point too.
-Justin
http:///forum/post/2616898
Thats a good point...
I tried to stay out of this, but I have to agree with the point too.
-Justin
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2616262
So you think that improving the health of the populace would not have the effect of promoting the general welfare? This issue has already been decided by minds far sharper than yours or mine - social security, medicare for example. It is hard to argue that the general welfare is not improved by these things.
Wow, those "sharp minds" are running social security into bankruptcy.
They can "promote" the general welfare, but not "provide" it. Tax incentives, money for research, even the money to help train new physicians "promotes" welfare. Federally funded and mandated health care is "providing". You have to have it, and the money will be taken from you whether or not you want it.
Personally, I think my mind is sharper than 90% of those in gov't. I can look on the mantle at my Dad's house and see the powder horn my ancestor used fighting the oppression of the British gov't. I will fight the same fight today as we lose liberty, and mark my words, federal socialized health care would be the biggest loss of liberty in the history of the US. As Obama said, you will not be able to choose what you eat. Under Hillary care in the 1990's medical students would lose the ability to choose their own specialty to study and practice. That would be assigned by the gov't according to "need".
Paging Dr. Marx, please answer the "red" courtesy phone.
http:///forum/post/2616262
So you think that improving the health of the populace would not have the effect of promoting the general welfare? This issue has already been decided by minds far sharper than yours or mine - social security, medicare for example. It is hard to argue that the general welfare is not improved by these things.
Wow, those "sharp minds" are running social security into bankruptcy.
They can "promote" the general welfare, but not "provide" it. Tax incentives, money for research, even the money to help train new physicians "promotes" welfare. Federally funded and mandated health care is "providing". You have to have it, and the money will be taken from you whether or not you want it.
Personally, I think my mind is sharper than 90% of those in gov't. I can look on the mantle at my Dad's house and see the powder horn my ancestor used fighting the oppression of the British gov't. I will fight the same fight today as we lose liberty, and mark my words, federal socialized health care would be the biggest loss of liberty in the history of the US. As Obama said, you will not be able to choose what you eat. Under Hillary care in the 1990's medical students would lose the ability to choose their own specialty to study and practice. That would be assigned by the gov't according to "need".
Paging Dr. Marx, please answer the "red" courtesy phone.