Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
26 online now:
Faith, LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (4 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,719 Year: 18,755/19,786 Month: 1,175/1,705 Week: 427/518 Day: 45/58 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6677
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 136 of 331 (567814)
07-02-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Flyer75
07-02-2010 1:38 PM


lthough Christian teachings, the Bible, and principles were the majority rule at the time (i.e. most accepted these facts at the time, thus they controlled the laws, norms, customs, ect).

I have a big problem with this statement. Most of the people of the original colonies were not a deeply religious people. We have this vision of everyone that emigrated to America s people that were escaping religious persecution. This is far from true. The elites tended to be thus(Puritan leaders, the Penns, the Catholics in Maryland0, but the average everyday person was not caught up ion religious fervor. Were they christians? Yes. But not christian as you know it now. The American christian you know now was a result of the Great Awakenings. The second and third are the probable basis for the evangelical Christianity people want to associate with colonial America. This new type of christianity though was post formation of the USA.

Also, the laws norms and customs of the americas were not based on christianity. They were based on english common law. Were there christian undertones to it? Of course, but the prime basis was english common law that has roots in the pre christian england. The ideals in the Constitution are not Christian. Where do you find them in christian writings? A lot of the ideas go back to the greeks and romans.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Flyer75, posted 07-02-2010 1:38 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6677
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 137 of 331 (567815)
07-02-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by dwise1
07-02-2010 3:52 PM


Is it coming?
Do I smell a new true Scotsmen coming?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 07-02-2010 3:52 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 138 of 331 (568461)
07-06-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Theodoric
06-26-2010 6:21 PM


Define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
Dear Theodoric,

Theodoric writes:

The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong.

Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement?

P.S.

I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting.

If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black.

Thank you,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 06-26-2010 6:21 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2010 10:53 AM JRTjr has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6677
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 139 of 331 (568499)
07-06-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by JRTjr
07-06-2010 12:38 AM


Re: Define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement?

Since you are the one that brought up 'right' and 'wrong', you will need to be the one to define them.

So, If “the Supreme Court” says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then “the Supreme Court” is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right.
Message 115

I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting.

If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black.

Ever notice how everyone else gets along with understanding peoples quotes without a need for lame colors. I realize you think it makes your arguments impressive, but they do not. The green is tough to read against the blue background and the red is especially hard to pick out with that cursive script you seem to favor.
But if you think it helps your arguments an makes you look better, by all means keep it up. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way so why don't you just ignore me.
How about you actually try to make your argument.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by JRTjr, posted 07-06-2010 12:38 AM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by dwise1, posted 07-06-2010 3:11 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 172 by JRTjr, posted 08-22-2010 6:28 PM Theodoric has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3768
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 140 of 331 (568565)
07-06-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Theodoric
07-06-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
Ever notice how everyone else gets along with understanding peoples quotes without a need for lame colors. I realize you think it makes your arguments impressive, but they do not. The green is tough to read against the blue background and the red is especially hard to pick out with that cursive script you seem to favor.
But if you think it helps your arguments an makes you look better, by all means keep it up. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way so why don't you just ignore me.

When he makes his messages unreadable, I just assume that he thinks that what he's posting is of no importance at all. He obviously doesn't think that we should bother to read it, so I don't. After all, if he really thought that any of it were important enough for us to read, he would make it readable, right?

Basic rules of communication. It's the responsibility of the sender of a message to remove as many obstacles for the receiver as possible. If the sender introduces obstacles, especially completely unnecessary ones (eg, font colors that blend into the background), then it is his intention to prevent the receiver from receiving the message, which runs completely counter to the entire idea of communication.

PS:
A related item. 1980's German comedian, Otto, waved a white handkerchef and pronounced it to the East Frisian flag (Ostfriesland jokes were like our Polish jokes) -- white eagle on a white field.

Edited by dwise1, : to remove a double negative


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2010 10:53 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


(1)
Message 141 of 331 (571642)
08-01-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
I find that the characterisation of Jefferson in this posting is wildly at odds with what we actually know from his writings and recorded conversations.
Firstly, he was what would now be called a Deist in my own opinion. I could go along with those who say he was a reluctant theist, or a revolutionary Christian who wanted to take the nonsense (and most of the 'religion') out of Christianity and emphasise the moral/ethical lessons. He had a lifelong hatred of the organised religions - including the various sects of Christianity - and he wrote a great deal, in great depth on the subject so it isn't necessary to second-guess or 'interpret' him.

This notion that he wanted religion to be free to interfere with the state but not vica-versa...I find that not just wrong but dishonest. Jefferson is on record on the subject, so the only way one could reach such a wildly inaccurate position is by willfully ignoring history and re-writing it to suit.

quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

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

Not much room for doubt is there? He welcomes (and reveres) the decision to erect a wall between the two. A wall works both ways and Jefferson was not stupid, so I think we assume he means what he says and doesn't require 'interpreting' by those with different opinions. If anyone can 'interpret' that as meaning he actually wanted a one-way passage, not a wall, then I believe they should seek employment as a Jesuit, in which calling they will find many like-minded people practising their sophistry and semantic gymnastics.

Jefferson despised the established churches, so the notion that he wanted to leave a way for churches to involve themselves in Government is fantasy.

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

quote:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
quote:
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

(I could go on. He wrote extensively and articulately about his dislike for all organised religion).
Did you know that Jefferson also re-wrote the Gospels? He took out all the magic and superstition and left Jesus as an earthly moral philosopher, not the son of God. Damn fine idea from a clear-thinking man Americans should indeed be thankful for. Let's have no more of this tawdry re-writing of history and silly re-interpretation of that which was never opaque.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffintr.html

The letters, addresses and various documents penned by Jefferson are publicly available below. If anyone wishes to assert that he was 'for the church' or that he wanted church involvement in Government then I would urge them to read what he said, not what you would have liked him to say.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/index.htm

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Edited by Bikerman, : To provide link to Jefferson letters and documents

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 7:38 AM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 142 of 331 (572203)
08-04-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coragyps
06-26-2010 6:48 PM


Re: FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
Dear Coragyps,

Great to hear from you, hope you will enjoy our discussions.

Coragyps writes:

I don't know who wrote this, but some of the "absurd" leaked out of their pen. First, the last paragraph of the Constitution preceded the First Amendment by three years or so. We try not to do retroactive laws in this country.

I believe that was the point that ‘Congress’ was making.

That it was absurd that the ‘9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow’ would contrive “that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII” is itself a violation of “the First Amendment to the Constitution

Findings

Pub. L. 107–293, § 1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057, provided that: “Congress finds the following:

Coragyps writes:

Second, ‘Year of our Lord’ is not an "express religious reference" - it's merely a way of telling time. You will note that it is immediately followed by "and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's an alternate way of telling time.

Yes, it is a way of telling time; however, it is also a direct reference to the ‘Christian Era’ that is it refers to the “Year of our Lord ‘Jesus Christ’”.

Coragyps writes:

"Under God" in the pledge is a whole different kettle of fish. It has no purpose in there except to chase away those scary godless pinko commies that were hiding under every other bed in 1954. Kind of like crosses and movieland Dracula.

That my be so, however, the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” in the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is nether an after though (like the Amendments to the ‘Constitution’) nor something added to warred of evil spirits.

Hope to hear more from you soon,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2010 6:48 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 7:23 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 152 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2010 9:58 PM JRTjr has responded

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 143 of 331 (572210)
08-04-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dr Adequate
06-26-2010 6:58 PM


Arbiters and mean
Dear Dr. Adequate,

You have hit on a vary good; and important point.

Dr. Adequate writes:

In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed… Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says.

But the Supreme Court is the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be.

Of course; you see, my argument is not whether or not “the Supreme Court” has the authority to be “arbiters” of what the U.S. Constitution “means” by what it says.

That is a matter of legality. Yes, “the Supreme Court” is the final ‘Legal’ “arbiter” of what the U.S. Constitution “means” by what it says. However, that does not change what the U.S. Constitution actually says or what it actually means by what it says.

In other words; if the constitution stated that ‘all dogs were dogs’; and the Supreme Court stated (in a ruling) that the constitution meant that ‘all dogs were cats’. We would all legally have to treat all dogs as if they were cats; however, that does not mean that ‘all dogs are actually cats’.

This is the point I was making when I spoke of my mother. If what she said was wrong there was nothing I could do about it; but that did not change the fact that she was wrong; she was still the authority and we had to do it her way.

At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended.

Dr. Adequate writes:

This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you)…

I was hoping you would use those references as a springboard to actually look at some of the Funding Documents, maybe read some of what our Founding Fathers had to say, etc.

I close with this:

“No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrong”

Thank you once again for your correspondence,
JRTjr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 6:58 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 08-04-2010 4:24 PM JRTjr has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31495
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 144 of 331 (572211)
08-04-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by JRTjr
08-04-2010 4:07 PM


On Founding Father's intents
JRTjr writes:

At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended.

Which of course is utter nonsense.

It is absolutely irrelevant what the Founding Fathers believed and they certainly knew that it would be irrelevant.

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society that met their needs but that would change over time to meet the needs of each generation. That is why they created a system that can change, designed in planned inefficiencies, and put the greatest power in the Supreme Court who also serve the longest terms.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 4:07 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 8:23 AM jar has responded

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 145 of 331 (572225)
08-04-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by JRTjr
08-04-2010 2:44 PM


Re: FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
Such terms were simply common ways of expressing quite secular meanings.
If you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers then look no further than the writings of Jefferson himself. For instance, the original wording HE used for part of the constitutions was:
quote:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."

This was changed by the congress.
Washington and Adams were quite clear about what Christianity meant to the government. Nothing. The tripoli agreement (below) was written under Washington's Presidency and signed in the Adams Presidence:

As I said, Jefferson is clear that he admires Jesus as a secular moralist/philosopher, not a divinity and certainly not in the Christian mold - the son of God. He could not have been clearer.

quote:
The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.

quote:
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it."

quote:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

quote:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Clear as crystal to anyone who wants to read the words....

What of Ben Franklin?

quote:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

quote:
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

quote:
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Adams?
quote:
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

quote:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

quote:
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

quote:
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Again it seems pretty clear to me....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 2:44 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 9:52 PM Bikerman has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-04-2010 11:02 PM Bikerman has responded

    
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 146 of 331 (572245)
08-04-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Bikerman
08-04-2010 7:23 PM


Re: FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
PS - terms like 'the year of our lord' were just the common idiom. Many people today use religious references with absolutely no religious intent. Anything from swearing to giving the date as BC or AD. The fact that religion deeply permeates the English Language is hardly surprising when you consider history. The inference that using religious expressions is somehow a tacit admission of religiousity is clearly fallacious. Next time you hear someone use a religious turn of phrase - ask them whether they meant it to express some religious POV or not - I'm pretty sure that the majority will say not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 7:23 PM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 147 of 331 (572247)
08-04-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Bikerman
08-04-2010 7:23 PM


Random administrative reference request (RARR)
Not that it doesn't too often happen elsewhere, but I'm going to butt in here and ask you to supply references/links for your there material.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Bikerman, posted 08-04-2010 7:23 PM Bikerman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Bikerman, posted 08-05-2010 12:12 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 148 of 331 (572254)
08-05-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Adminnemooseus
08-04-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Random administrative reference request (RARR)
Fair request.
Here is the source from which I first found many of the quotes used
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
However, being a careful soul, I then checked each quote that I used individually, using a simple google text search.

Reference for all the Jefferson quotes is contained in my previous posting up the page - towards the end I give a link to the full letters/writings of Jefferson and all the above quotes can be verified there.

Ben Franklin quotes : supporting links:
q1. http://en.wikisource.org/...in_Franklin/Section_Twenty_Eight
q2. I just happen to have learned that one some time ago, but it is relatively well known and a google search should pull up many citations.
q3. http://www.quotiki.com/quotes/16535 (not very authoratitive, but again there are many citations available with a quick google).

Adams quotes supporting links
q1. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams
q2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
q3. http://www.foundersquotes.com/...ral-authority-of-the-people
q4. http://thinkexist.com/..._all_possible_worlds-if/181376.html

Now, I know that these sources are not academically admissable for the most part, and I wouldn't use them in a written thesis, but I think they are all easy enough to track down if required, and I think I did enough due dilligence for a forum debate :-)

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-04-2010 11:02 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 149 of 331 (572360)
08-05-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by dwise1
06-27-2010 5:08 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
Dear Dwise1,

Dwise1 writes:

Who cares what Jefferson had to say…?

Well, frankly, I do. I think that being the “third President of the United States (1801–1809)”A, “the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)” B, and “a horticulturist, political leader, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia.” C eminently qualifies Him to speak on behalf of our founding fathers.

However, If you listen to what Madison is saying in his decoration (Yes, I read the whole thing) he was insisting that the government have no right what-so-ever to restrict the freedom of the people in their religious pursuits, and that he believed that if this ‘amendment’ where placed into the Constitution that the government would, at some time, in some way, pervert it and use it to infringe on religious freedoms. Quit prophetic, I would say.

By the way, I found these quotes (At the same website you gave us) in reference to government and Religion: (emphasis mine)

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion:

XXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates is to entertain the most honourable sentiments of their function, which they know to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as God's ministers and vicegerents. . ..D.

Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists:

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.--E.

Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec:

…that the Divine Being would bless to you the dispensations of his over-ruling providence, by securing to you and your latest posterity the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government, which it is the privilege of all English subjects to enjoy.F.

John Adams, Novanglus, no. 4:

The clergy of this province are a virtuous, sensible and learned set of men, and they don't take their sermons from news-papers but the bible, unless it be a few who preach passive obedience. These are not generally curious enough to read Hobbs… The clergy in all ages and countries, and in this in particular, are disposed enough to be on the side of government, as long as it is tolerable…G.

It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.H.

Let me put a supposition. Justice is a great Christian as well as moral duty and virtue, which the clergy ought to inculcate and explain. Suppose a great man of a parish should for seven years together receive 600 sterling a year, for discharging the duties of an important office; but during the whole time, should never do one act or take one step about it. Would not this be great injustice to the public? And ought not the parson of the parish to cry aloud and spare not, and shew such a bold transgressor his sin? Shew that justice was due to the public as well as to an individual, and that cheating the public of four thousand two hundred pounds sterling, is at least as great a sin as taking a chicken from a private hen roost, or perhaps a watch from a fob!I.

Dwise1 writes:

quote:

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

quote:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

What part of that do you not understand?

The part, were you believe that this somehow declares that there must be a wall of separation between the Church and the State (Keeping the state out of the Church and the Church out of the state.)

I agree with Madison on the point that he is making here; which is that if you start allowing the government to make laws concerning religion (The Church) then the government can begin restricting the free exercise of religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to prevent: keeping the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. Not to keep religious expression out of the Government.

I would like to respond to all that you have written but that would, inevitably, make both of our post far to long.

Thank you for your time and effort,
JRTjr.

References:
A,B,C. Wikipedia.org / Thomas Jefferson
D. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 1
E. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 15
F. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I -on religion / 20
G,H,I. U Chicago.edu / founders documents / amend I - on religion / 22.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by dwise1, posted 06-27-2010 5:08 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Bikerman, posted 08-05-2010 7:26 PM JRTjr has responded
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2010 7:50 PM JRTjr has responded

    
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 150 of 331 (572432)
08-05-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by JRTjr
08-05-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
quote:
The part, were you believe that this somehow declares that there must be a wall of separation between the Church and the State (Keeping the state out of the Church and the Church out of the state.)
What belief? Those are the words used by Jefferson - you don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in evolution, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it. Likewise I don't 'believe' that the constitution was both designed to, and does, establish exactly a WALL of separation between Church and State, since no belief is required - it is evident.

As for Madison's intent : I refer you to the following which should clear up any perceived ambiguity:

quote:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.

and

quote:
"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

I don't see how any ambiguity could now remain in the mind of any honest person. This is explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous.

Sources:
http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=20...
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm

Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JRTjr, posted 08-05-2010 11:10 AM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by JRTjr, posted 09-12-2010 4:37 PM Bikerman has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019