Separation of church and state

There are typical assertions about American history that seem to regularly pop up in creation vs evolution debates. The following are a few recent examples here. Though history doesn’t seem to be a main topic of interest in these particular forums, I think this is something that needs to be addressed, and hope this will fit an appropriate sub-forum here. Those examples (by several different posters); Message 124
Message 455
Message 466
Message 449
Separation of church and state had nothing to do with US foundings. It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. James Madison is generally considered to be the most prominent founder of the U.S. His appointee to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, made these observations about religion and government in 1833;

quote:

---

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; --- these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience.

---

And

quote:

---

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as it is not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

---

Justice Joseph Story on Church and State (1833) Here is a listing of the religions of the US founders. Not one of them was an atheist.Separation of church and state was an important part of a constitution, but it wasn’t the US constitution.

quote:

---

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

---

Soviet Union - ConstitutionAbout 100 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson said this;

quote:

---

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."

---

A few decades after he said that, in 1947, an activist US Supreme Court, packed by FDR during the 1930’s, separated church and state for the first time in the US.So the fact is, separation of church and state evolved in the US — it was not part of US foundings. The scientific community really should stop implying that it was. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.Edited by marc9000, : Added links and names to opening quotesEdited by AdminPD, : Direct links to post.

Understood. Edited as requested. I'm not sure how to link single messages from other threads - hopefully the way I did it will suffice.

Some, but not all of the respondents to this thread so far seem clear on just what it is about, so I’ll clarify. There is already a thread from earlier this year about the US being a Christian nation. Those discussions seldom seem to get too far, opinions abound, and little significant historical fact is promoted. I intended this thread to be more about a look at actual history, two things that can be factually explored. 1) How separation of church and state has changed in its application over a period of 200+ years, and 2) claims that the US foundations had no religious inspiration or content at all.Something I’ve never seen thoroughly explored before is how separation of church and state is a two-way street. When the subject comes up, it’s important to distinguish if the discussion is about protecting the state from the church, or the church from the state. In quotes from the US founders, it’s usually about the latter. In political issues of today, it’s usually the former.Hello Chiroptera, Well said, the quote mining thing is a problem for/from both sides. But one of the worst quote mines of all is the Treaty of Tripoli. That was a negotiation process with a Moslem nation, it wasn’t a summary of US foundings. Those who promote that as a summary don’t have a lot of room to accuse others of quote mining. (not you, I’m referring to others in this thread — I can’t respond to this many opponents individually) Adam’s Treaty of Tripoli terminology directly contradicts some of his other quotes. That he felt he had to use those words to convince another nation that the US had no religious restrictions that would prevent secular trade was his choice as an imperfect human. It’s a political thing, and it goes on today as well. (understatement of the year)Your comment about many people involved in framing the Constitution is an important one, and one that is all too often lost in these discussions. While the findings on this page
could be controversial, they are eye opening to those who only hear the implication that Jefferson, Adams, and Frankin were all Deists, therefore all the founders were Deists. This site shows a list of founders in order of their influence on US foundings. No surprise that James Madison is on top, but who were the next four, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, and Elbridge Gerry? Where’s golden boy Thomas Jefferson? He’s 19th. Joseph Story, one of the first Supreme court justices that I quoted in my opening post, is on that list, as is John Witherspoon, a mentor of James Madison. Madison attended the College of New Jersey (later to become Princeton university) where Witherspoon was president, and also a Presbyterian minister. There was a personal closeness between Madison and Witherspoon — that is actual history. Witherspoon signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was not a Deist. Were Sherman, Wilson, King, and Gerry Deists? Let’s look at a few quotes;

quote:

---

Roger Sherman I believe that there is one only living and tru God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.

​

James Wilson "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

​

Rufus King "The law established by the Creator, which has existed from the beginning, extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. This is the law of God by which He makes His way known to man and is paramount to all human control."

---

John Jay is on the list (one of only three writers of the Federalist Papers), Patrick Henry is on the list. They were not Deists. The more that the history of the framers and their influence is actually studied, it becomes more and more clear why the words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution. That wasn’t jar’s point originally — he did a switcharoo. I understand what you’re saying, and there are political processes for it, though there are well supported opinions that the courts have helped themselves to more authority than the constitution originally allowed them. But it’s important for me in this thread to address claims that there are no religious principles in US foundings — that the founders were adamant about keeping religious influence out of government. There are religious inscriptions all over original government buildings in Washington D.C., and George Washington proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving within days of the vote on the Bill of Rights. These things could not happen today, and it needs to be acknowledged that separation of church and state has been an evolving process. That is true, but human nature does not change. When Madison said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents, I don’t think he was saying that someday it will be okay as the population gets lazier and lazier. You and I probably disagree on what limits there should be on how much US founding should be permitted to evolve, probably the differences between originalism vs a living constitution, and I don’t see any progress on that dispute being made on any discussion forum. You’ve partially acknowledged what my point was in the opening post, that separation of church and state have evolved into something quite different than they were at the time of the US founding. So my question to you would be; do statements like this...

quote:

---

The US Constitution is NOT Biblically based in any way or form.
So far no one has been able to show ANYTHING in the US Constitution that is Biblically based.

---

that I c/p’d in my opening post, do harm when they fly around on forums about science and go unchallenged? Is it of special interest to science to get things wrong about what happened 200 years ago?

quote:

---

After reviewing an estimated fifteen thousand items, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, books, monographs, and so on, written between 1760 and 1805 by the fifty-five men who signed the Constitution, professors Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman presented their findings in a 1984 American Political Science Review. Their article, "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," revealed that the Bible, especially the book of Deuteronomy, contributed 34 percent of all quotations used by our Founding Fathers.4 The other sources cited include;

​

Baron Charles Montesquieu, 8.3 percent
Sir William Blackstone, 7.9 percent
John Locke, 2.9 percent
David Hume, 2.7 percent
Plutarch, 1.5 percent
Beccaria, 1.5 percent
Trenchard and Gordon, 1.4 percent
Delolme, 1.4 percent
Samuel von Pufendorf, 1.3 percent
Cicero, 1.2 percent
Hugo Grotius, 0.9 percent
Shakespeare, 0.8 percent
Vattel, 0.5 percent.
These additional sources also took 60 percent of their quotes from the Bible. Including both direct and indirect citations, the majority of all quotations referenced by the Founders come from Scripture.

---

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.phpHmm, fifteen thousand items — that’s about how many opponents I have in this thread! The concept of freedom and liberty are found throughout the Bible. Starting with Deuteronomy (mentioned above as the most referenced book of the Bible by the founders), we see the concept of settling new land, (chapter 1;8) not being afraid of any man, (chapter 1;17) and in chapter 4; 6 observing [decrees and laws] carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.From Leviticus 25; 10, Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.2nd Corinthians 3; 17 Now the Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.Freedom not only to LIVE free, but to REJECT the word of the Lord. Jeremiah 6; 19 they have rejected, 8; 9 .since they have rejected the word of the Lord. Mark 7; 8 ..you have let go of the commands of GodHere is what Proverbs 18:17 says;The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.The judicial and political proceedings in the constitution reflect this type of Biblical thinking.The Federalist Papers were a collection of essays that explain the philosophy and defend the advantages of the U.S. Constitution. An overall summary of the Federalist Papers is that the primary political motive of man is selfish, and that men — whether acting individually or collectively — are selfish and only imperfectly rational. Isaiah 33; 22 says For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king The founders didn’t pull out of thin air the constitutional concept of three separate divisions for; judging (Supreme court and inferior courts), lawgiving (Congress) and king (president) The checks and balances, the separation of powers, that are much of what the Constitution is about, is patterned after the Christian doctrine that men are sinners, and that the only possibility of good government lay in mans capacity to devise several political institutions that would police each other.Article 1, section 7 says Sundays excepted, when referring to the amount of time the president has to return a bill. Sunday as a day of rest is not Deist, and it’s not even Jewish. It’s Christian.

quote:

---

The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped.

---

Introduction The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing
(this is a pro separation of church and state webpage) It shows who was most closely involved in the process. Your dismissal of prominent founders as biggest politicians, and not knowing about the eight year life of Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, speaks volumes about your honesty and knowledge of this subject. Who is we? Atheists? Liberals? The scientific community? Please list your giants, and the criteria you use to compile that list. Because I have not made that claim. There is a big difference between the church and general Christian principles.

The Key word is LIBERTY. If there was one thing the founders seemed to be united on, that was it. Liberty and limited government. You don’t’ think he would have objected to the thought of liberty and limited government to be negotiated away in the future? If you believe all of what the framers intended is irrelevant, it’s something we have to agree to disagree on because a discussion of it would take this thread too far from it’s topic. I think it’s a bad thing, because it allows the religion of scientism free reign to combine with state. It partly was my point, and in my opening post I quoted Joseph Story — I’ll repeat one paragraph here;

quote:

---

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; --- these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience.

---

When he said responsibility for actions — future state of rewards and punishments, he obviously wasn’t referring to a Deist god. But I think his main point was that if Christianity isn’t encouraged among citizens, something else is going to replace it. It won’t be neutrality, it may be something that society (with liberty and limited government) can’t exist with. If we let Obama keep spending, if we tax everyone to death to combat global warming, we won’t have liberty.

Haha, neither do I — I’m just one poster that started a thread about US history. There’s a total of 55 messages here, after two of mine. Some are so agitated that they’re posting multiple replies to one message of mine, and some are using four-letter words.So maybe I’m the wrong one to ask about fuss. But liberty and limited government is relevant, separation of church and state is relevant. The framers never had to deal with the combination of atheism and state to the degree that we do today. You’d have to read my opening post again. Read the Woodrow Wilson quote. A knowledge of a country’s history by it’s own citizens is thought of to be important by many people. I, like many, believe that an ignorance of it can be a significant contributor to that country’s downfall. When I see history mis-represented on a scientific forum, I thought it could be worth some exploration. This is a discussion forum. Strange how some scientific posters see separation of church and state in the first amendment, but don’t see freedom of speech for conservatives there.

When I see a group of 15 or 20 posters, using the n word, four-letter words, and personal insults against one poster, you might see a quest for open, thoughtful debate, but I don’t see it. I see increasing attempts to make me angry, draw me into similar responses, and get the administration to close the thread. I’d really like to continue to explore the evolution of church and state separation, the fact of its existence in the Soviet constitution, and President Wilson’s words about the societal costs of citizens who ignore their country’s actual history. I have 13 opponents, with questions and demands from about 10 different positions. If you feel things are jumbled up, you can blame me if you’d like, but I’d just ask you to be patient. No poster has yet said a word about the Soviet constitution’s content about separation of church and state. It was in the opening post, and it’s part of the topic at hand. Even if no one else addresses it, I’d like to get to it eventually. I claimed that it was a two way street, and haven’t yet had a chance to thoroughly explain that, as I had to wait and see just how far that was going to soar over everyone’s heads. I see I have a LOT to do. I have to work for a living — tonight I have about 1 hour to post. I’m not going to be able to get it all done tonight. Tomorrow night I’m likely to start my computer and find 10 more posts about the Treaty of Tripoli, or still more goalpost moving about Christian principles in the Constitution. How about giving me a couple of weeks, before you sum up my ability to stay on topic? I think it’s valid in that it prevents a state religion from being established — any denomination from having a politically established advantage over another. That’s ONE WAY, of the two way street I mentioned previously. Before 1947, there was a good, long standing balance between government and religion. The OTHER WAY is in how, since 1947, it’s become a way to make voluntary religious activities unconstitutional, or disrupting a long standing balance between government and religion. The courts are increasingly basing their decisions on their own past decisions more than they are on the original intent of the framers. Some say that’s fine — we now know more than the founders did. Then why have a constitution at all? Usurping state powers, destroying the cooperative relationship between church and state, restricting public religious expressions, these didn't happen overnight, and no single act is going to fix everything overnight. I don't favor any repeals, I favor some honest education about US history. It's not all summed up by the Treaty of Tripoli.

I never heard about them in public schools, but that site and many others educated me beyond my public schooling. We all learn things as we explore — I’d bet you never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli before you visited some atheist websites. I’d bet you never heard of the Constitutional phrase EXCEPT SUNDAYS before I pointed it out in this thread, did you?What historians? What giants? They are not direct, they are indirect. Show me where I claimed that. And we see that the Soviet Union is not free. The Soviet Union that has separation of church and state in its constitution.

The analysis of empirical data is an entire political and economic worldview, comparable to the beliefs of any religious denomination. Embryonic stem cell research, cloning, animal rights, global warming, on and on. The 'constitutional rights' to research and funding for it, with a power above the traditional morality that existed when the US was founded, is exactly the same as an establishment of religion in government.

Then my question would be, since the first treaty of Tripoli states that As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion., the two words ANY SENSE is a profound part of it. Unless we bend and shape the word any, it means absolutely none - not a single one. Yet Sundays excepted is one, isn’t it? I’ve been shown here in Message 46 (correctly) that treaties are established law in the US. Suppose that phrase of the Treaty of Tripoli was closely examined — taken to court, with the only intent to find out if it’s true. If you were the judge, would it be? If I were the judge, it wouldn’t be, because I wouldn’t be willing to play games with the word any. I’m not claiming it’s a Christian document. But it has to be based on something, however indirect or vague some people may find that base to be. No, indirect as I’m using it means a consideration of Biblical guidelines for living. As I showed in my Message 56, the settling of new land, observing decrees and laws, the cooperation of people within an organized society. Neither will the US, if it continues to change, to continue to make separation of church and state such an important part of it’s education/law. Going back to a quote that I referred to in my opening post; Half of a constitutional law class? Could it have been half of a constitutional law class 200 years ago?

quote:

---

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

---

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford—Once Christian? | Answers in Genesis Why has separation of church and state evolved so much?

It’s a bad thing for a society that was originally populated by Christians. A society can be diverse — it can welcome members of other societies, but when those new members want to impose beliefs/lifestyles/rules from their homeland that clash with existing beliefs/lifestyles/rules, it’s not going to work. Diversity has to have limits, when it comes to maintaining rules on how a society operates. It allows the religion of humanism to be established. The religion of humanism is closely related with scientism. The basic philosophy of humans evolving from lower forms of animals is that society continues to evolve and so must our ethics and system of morality. The tenets of the Humanist Manifestos are based on the worldview of evolution. If enough people in a society believe that morals shouldn’t change, it shouldn’t be a decision of a publically established scientific community to tell them they’re wrong.

I appreciate that very much. When this ones over, and in a less busy time of the year for me, I may propose a one on one with someone.

I should have made this clear much earlier. I bring it up largely not to complain, but to show the insecurity it displays. If one or two people were making good arguments against me, the other 11 or 12 wouldn’t have much or anything to say. It shows a lack of confidence in each other — a feeling that other posters are doing inadequate jobs. But it also seems to be an attempt to make my position look like one of a tiny minority, with your saying I’m wrong about so many things. Current Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and probably John Roberts wouldn’t think they’re too wrong. Neither would former justice William Rehnquist. Neither would the many millions of people across the US that make talk radio and Fox news the successful enterprises that they are. If most of those at these forums get their news exclusively from the NY Times, CNN, or the faculty at Harvard, that doesn’t necessarily mean that most of the population does. Stone v Graham County of Allegheny v ACLUYou can say that those aren’t 100% voluntary religious activities, but they’re 90%. When these types of cases are judged, they are justified by citations of previous case law. In Stone, the pre 1947 citations were zero, post 1947 citations were fifteen. In Allegheny, pre 1947 citations were zero, post 1947 citations were 126.

It tells me that they checked up on what was going on in US politics throughout the 30’s and 40’s, that led up to that decision, and saw it (combined with FDR’s actions) to be a good idea for their communist/atheist government. Our currency got In God We Trust put on in the 1950’s, the era of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was a lot more than just a backlash of the 1947 Everson case, but that was a small part of it. The courts say that, when they base their decisions on their own past decisions more than on the original intent of the framers. See the above referenced citations in 'Stone' and 'Allegheny'. Those cases would have been decided differently before 1947. No. Just like there shouldn’t be a cooperative relationship between an atheist university management and state, or humanism and state. In the late 18th and into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public money in support of religion. Typical was Jeffersons treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the tribe’s Roman Catholic priest and church. That was a time very close to the formation of the constitution. It’s today’s revisionists that trumpet the separation of church and state who hate the constitution, not me.