Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 78 (259465)
11-13-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
11-12-2005 7:49 PM


why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
If it is wrong, why did the same people that passed the Bill of Rights open up with Christian prayer?
Why did George Washington claim religion and duty to God was central to the form of government and society we had embarked on?
Why did Thomas Jefferson spend federal dollars to support missionaries out West?
The simple fact is you are misreading the Constitution. The Constitution forbids Congress from making laws respective to religion. It does not forbid Congress from participating in religion in any form, nor any other part of the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 11-12-2005 7:49 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 12:47 AM randman has not replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 7:04 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 78 (259725)
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
11-14-2005 7:04 AM


Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
RAZD, better yet. Ignore the infidels site and read George Washington's inaugural addresses, which are more religious in nature than some sermons. He explicitly states the government's purpose is to please God, and that only in pleasing the Creator can the government and people succeed.
Separation of Church and State is not the same thing as separation of God from the State, and Washington rebukes the whole secularist notion quite pointedly in his 2nd Inaugural Address, which in context is a strong rebuke of the secularism of the French revolution and secularist advocates such as Thomas Paine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 7:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 6:36 PM randman has replied
 Message 23 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:55 PM randman has not replied
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 11:08 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 78 (259737)
11-14-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
11-14-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Deist gods.
In the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter at all if Washington was a Deist at that time or a born-again Christian. Either way, he was very religious.
Furthermore, by some of you guys' analysis, Bush is a heathen that never got saved and laughs at overly religious people.
Washington may have been a Deist as a young man, whether he remained one is in doubt, but either way he felt that the role of government was to please the Creator and follow His will, and he stated that quite plainly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 6:36 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 78 (259741)
11-14-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-14-2005 6:13 PM


Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
Actually, here is elsewhere I meant first inaugural address. Shall we look at Washington's first official action?
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe
He considered his official act, note the word "official", should be to offer fervent prayer to God. Let's look at the quote in context and see if this is a side comment of a politician or fundamental to his political philosophy.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
He closes with:
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
Page Not Found | Yale University
All in all, I think Washington's first address is the most religious and religiously motivated speech any president has probably ever given as president to the nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:13 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 10:53 PM randman has not replied
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:40 AM randman has replied
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 6:23 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 78 (260426)
11-16-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
11-16-2005 6:23 PM


Re: Washington and religion
You needn't have posted so a lengthy and colorful entry. Your argument falls down in exactly the same areas as before.
Point 1: Washington was a very religious man in his political perspective, as evidenced by his words when he accepted the presidency.
Point 2: The fact Washington may not have been an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, and thus did not participate in communion changes Point 1 none at all. It is completely and wholly a separate issue.
If you want to discuss these points, fine. They were germane to the discussion. Whether he was a Christian or orthodox Christian are not.
On the rest of your post, it seems a waste of time discussing this with you because you deny Washington made public statements after I quoted you the statements he made in his first inaugural address.
If you wish to discuss reality, we can, but please don't make up stuff.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 11:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 6:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 1:41 AM randman has replied
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2005 7:13 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 78 (260427)
11-17-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
11-16-2005 8:40 AM


Re: addressing washington
Addresses are personal addresses by those who are being inaugurated as President. That you have to find language within an address indicates how hard pressed you are to find substance within Washington's presidency to support your claims.
1. Actually, the fact the addresses are more personal is all the more reason why they are valid. The fact you cannot see that shows, despite repeating the same things to you ad nauseum, you still haven't a clue what my claims are.That's sad on your part that you are so wrapped up into deception you cannot listen to what another person's position is.
2.On your 2nd point, I corrected myself about the 2nd address earlier. Did you not understand it or something?
While in his first address he does mention God in a variety of flowery terms, which yes does show his personal faith, he does not use it to press any case that any particular idea of God or God's Laws should be stamped on this nation.
3. That depends on what you mean by God and God's laws. He does, in fact, state that God protected and established the new nation, that God rules among the affairs of men. I think it's pretty clear he believes governments and nations are judged by God and that how those nations act creates either postive or negative reactions from God.
As far as ecclesiastical affairs, like the vast majority of Christians, Washington believes the state should stay out of that, but that hardly means the state is not answerable to the Creator about it's own deeds and actions, nor individual leaders excused either.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 12:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:40 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 1:52 AM randman has replied
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2005 5:35 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 78 (260430)
11-17-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
11-16-2005 8:40 AM


Re: addressing washington
If you answer none of the other points, at the very least answer what we should take from the fact that after that first address, his following address and actions taken in the govt were not related to religion
I missed this in the last post so adding a new post here. Let me ask you something? Are you under the impression that anyone here or anywhere for that matter has argued that the government should involve itself in the affairs of religion?
I don't know of any major figure in America today, nor of anyone here on this forum who has ever argued such a thing, and frankly wonder why you insist on beating your fists against the sky as if someone has, or secretly wants to, or anything like that. Do you guys on the Left just think there is some sinister plot to use the government to make you be a Christian or something?
Washington believed in God, and clearly believed the state and the nation as a whole are answerable to the Creator. I would thus argue that all of his ethics and ideas are in light of that belief, and that everything he did as president, that he believed was right at least, was his personal religion being acted out in life. He believed God had brought the nation to that point, and that he and the nation and the government had a duty to the Creator to do the right thing, which entailed preserving the rights they fought for in the Revolution, and creating a functional, responsible government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:40 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2005 5:46 AM randman has not replied
 Message 68 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 7:57 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 78 (260453)
11-17-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 1:41 AM


Re: Washington and religion
And?
Did it go right over your head that Washington being a Deist or not being a Deist is not relevant?
Point 1: Washington was a very religious man in his political perspective, as evidenced by his words when he accepted the presidency.
Point 2: The fact Washington may not have been an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, and thus did not participate in communion changes Point 1 none at all. It is completely and wholly a separate issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 1:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:00 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 45 of 78 (260457)
11-17-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 2:00 AM


Re: Washington and religion
You are mixing up posts and thus the arguments. Washington believed in an active God that rules among the affairs of men, specifically causing events to be America's favor, and the evidence for this is his speech during his inaugural address.
So I addressed that, and in the context of relative to ruling over the world, Washington had a fairly Christian concept of God, that was not fully consistent with what I learned of Deism, which is that God just ignores the world and lets the principles set in motion work, and thus it would be folly really to even bother praying to God.
Of course, within Christianity, there is some sense as well that principles of God rule, and I also stated in that same vein that it seems likely that Washington held to a mixture of Christian or Judeo-Christian and Deist concepts, and perhaps like many of us changed somewhat over time.
The important thing is not whether he was a Christian in his private life, but that he felt God should be acknowledged and credited with the formation of the nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:24 AM randman has replied
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2005 5:52 AM randman has not replied
 Message 69 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 8:06 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 78 (260458)
11-17-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 1:52 AM


Re: addressing washington
must a person be christian to invoke the word "god?"
No and I have never claimed Washington was a Christian or not a Christian. I have claimed he was very religious, particularly in his political philosophy and approach, but also in his manner.
He quite explicitly gave the most religious speech for his inaugural address that I know of, for any president, and more religious than some sermons. Why you don't acknowledge that is a mystery?
Moreover, why don't you actually deal with my points? You have ignored what Washington said, and instead argue about whether he was a Christian or not which is not even relevant to the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 1:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:26 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 78 (260466)
11-17-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 2:24 AM


Re: Washington and religion
it's 1789 in post-colonial america. EVERYONE had a fairly christian concept of god.
Thanks for acknowledging that truth, and Washington felt and expressed gratitude towards that God.
I admit the words he used to describe God such as Creator and Invisible Hand were more Deist sounding and broader sounding, but you have to realize that Washington's faith differed a lot from, say, Paine's Deism which was denounced at times as atheist, although that is probably incorrect.
the close personal and involved god that give "opportunities?" he's saying "we formed the government, and god's happy about it." that's not the same as saying god should be creditted with the formation of the old u.s. of a.
That's a misrepresentation of what he stated. Why not use the full quotes or at least the sections such as:
In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United Stat es. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency;
1. He states God is the Author of every private and public good; " the Great Author of every public and private good." That's a powerful theological statement. It credits God with originating our own good deeds and that good government comes from God as well as many other things.
2. God does not just originate the good that we do, but He stated that God providentially helped pave the way.
What could be more clearer?
This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 02:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:57 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 78 (260468)
11-17-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 2:26 AM


Re: addressing washington
The speech is 6 paragraphs.The first deals with his personal issues of accepting the presidency.
The 2nd paragraph is entirely religious in nature and specifically links God to the success of the nation and lays out his fundamental belief and gratitude in the Creator, setting politics in a religious perspective. Read it.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by t hemselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United Stat es. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tran quil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anti cipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under t he influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
The 3rd paragraph deals with his pledge and belief in morality, and once again sets this idea within a religious perspective in his closing.
...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
The 4th paragraph deals with the fact the level of Executive powers are to be worked out more clearly, and the 5th deals with his renumeration.
He closes by reminding everyone of the religious concepts he laid out so forcefully earlier.
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplica tion that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advanc ement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
So I'd say 2.5 paragraphs are totally religious in nature, and considering this was a political speech, and he chose to underline the entire speech with religious faith towards the Creator, the Author of every private and public good, I take exception to your claim the speech is not very religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:02 AM randman has not replied
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2005 5:59 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 78 (260469)
11-17-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NosyNed
11-17-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Christian Prayer
Ned, I don't know if you too old, and thus feeble-minded or what, but the context of talking about Christian prayer in Congress concerned the fact that Congress did not consider it against the establishment clause, not that I was arguing they wanted to make Christianity the official state religion. In fact, I was arguing that public religious expression is not equal to public establishment of religion in the law. I guess that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp. You just see someone saying "Christian", and it's like waving a red flag to a bull, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2005 2:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:05 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 78 (260473)
11-17-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 2:57 AM


Re: Washington and religion
what he's saying is that god gave us opportunity and disposition -- with which WE (not god) created our government.
He is still crediting God with being the Author of our government anyway you look at it. What do you think he means when he says "the Author of every public and private good"?
Of course, he is not claiming God did this without he and the revolutionaries, but so what? You think I was stating he is claiming God just went "poof" and created the USA without people ever being involved?
Get real and read the darn speech.
his speech, and maybe the government, is an homage to the author of good. but god is not the author of the government -- THE PEOPLE ARE.
Once again, what do you think he means by referring to "the Author of every public and private good"?
Of course, the people created the government, but Washington is saying God is the Author of the government, and thus suggests the people were one of the agencies God employed in bringing it to pass. And heck, do you think there is any preacher now or back then that would say any differently (provided they believed it was God)? You act like a Christian would say, hey, we didn't fight this war. God did it, and the people were not part of it. What the heck really are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 2:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:11 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 78 (260476)
11-17-2005 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by arachnophilia
11-17-2005 3:05 AM


Re: Christian Prayer
You asked:
you called washington's speech "a prayer." why?
Because Washington called it a prayer.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by t hemselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either.
Supplications and thanksgiving and acknowledgement of God are forms of prayer. Washington said he was offering "my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being", and it's pretty clear he considers his references to "His benediction..." to be a prayer and homage even if expressed in a manner which seems to us to not directly address God. Clearly Washington felt it did address God as a fervent supplication.
Are you going to answer the questions or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:15 AM randman has not replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 11-17-2005 3:18 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024