Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   separation of church and state - a christian perspective please.
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6333 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 61 of 64 (306929)
04-27-2006 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
04-26-2006 8:58 PM


quote:
Can you show where it translates into putting the commandments into the courthouse?
Please cite the applicable article of the constitution. Perhaps Article VI?
Why don't they see? No church in government. Current world theocracies and the goings-on should discourage any such notion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2006 8:58 PM RAZD has not replied

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (308721)
05-03-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
04-25-2006 8:55 AM


Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845
Re: The ACLU’s “repeated reference ”to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
Dear Phat:
Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich is lucky he was not on the bench in 1845 because Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845. Read the excerpts presented below to learn what the delegates to the Texas Constitution said about the Separation of Church and State at the 1845 Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.
Mr. Davis said The only reason why I rise is that during my canvass in Liberty County, I was accused of wishing to unite Church and State, in consequence of my opinions upon this subject. I deny that it is uniting Church and State to permit ministers of the gospel to participate in the legislation of the country. Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Davis expressed his view that if an effort is desired to be made by the religious portion of the community to unite Church and State, may it not as well be made by the members of the churches as ministers of the gospel? Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Love pointed out that Protestants marked out a different line of policy. They said it was wrong to unite church and State, wrong that the law should settle the rule of faith, and regulate the religion of Jesus Christ. They would not admit that men should be subject to human authority in matters of opinion: they denied the right to control the conscience, it claimed the right to worship as they pleased; although they submitted to the authority of the law, necessary to prevent crime and preserve the good order of society. It was the cause of the success of Protestantism. Page 170, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown said that religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown I am not willing upon any consideration to relinquish the principle that Church and State, by every mode that can enter into the imagination of this body, should be kept separate, that neither may become corrupt, that religion should have its, powerful sway and benefit influence over private life, and that political affairs should rest in the hands of political men: This, sir, is a discrimination which I feel bound to observe. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown - It seems to me safer and better for the institution of religion and better for the institution of government, that the two bodies, both grasping at power, both capable of forming contributions, formidable to liberty on the one hand and to religion on the other, should be kept forever separate and distinct. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Evans stated they have declared in that Bill of Rights that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: that no man shall be compelled to attend or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience: and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious societies, or mode of worship. Is not that article amply sufficient guard and security against the union of church and state? If not, I will go with any gentleman to make it stronger. But how does the exclusion of the ministers of religion from our legislative halls tend to defeat the ruin of church and state. What bearing has such an exclusion upon it? I say it has none at all. Page 184, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Love - In no county has there been a set of preachers who have more zealously striven to do their duty, and they have done it. Why have they done it? Because they have not mixed politics with religion. Page 172, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Broward said he was in favor of excluding ministers of the Gospel from any participation in the affairs of government. He saw, however, no necessity of expressing a reason and if there should be any he would have it a just one. If he should vote for the section, it was not for the sake of preserving the church pure and uncontaminated but for the sake of political security. He would move to strike out that part of the section relating to their "dedication to God, and the care of souls." Page 165, Debates of the Texas Convention.
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1845debates/00000016.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 04-25-2006 8:55 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 05-03-2006 11:47 AM FreddyFlash has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18638
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 63 of 64 (308754)
05-03-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by FreddyFlash
05-03-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845
It IS a controversial issue. I heard an I.D. proponent speak of the Christian moral duty in everyday life speaking on the radio yesterday.
Here was an interview with one such Christian.
Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. Listen to both days. You may not agree with her, but the central issue is "Is God a public figure or are the secularists right in maintaining the private view"?
Does God belong in the public arena, or is religion solely a private matter? Nancy Pearcey makes a passionate case that Christianity is not just religious truth, but truth about all reality.
Very controversial!
(She also wrote a book.
This message has been edited by Phat, 05-03-2006 09:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by FreddyFlash, posted 05-03-2006 9:16 AM FreddyFlash has not replied

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 64 (312202)
05-15-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by macaroniandcheese
04-27-2006 1:04 AM


Re: Scalia and Thomas
Separation of Church and State In A Nutshell
by Fred T. Slicer
The U. S. Constitution of 1787 was ratified with the general understanding that the national government had no power over religion.
James Madison at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 12, 1788 argued in favor of ratification of the U. S. Constitution of 1787 by saying, “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.” [Note 1] The duty to explain the Constitution to the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention fell to James Wilson. In response to the allegation that there was no security for the right of conscience in the Constitution, Wilson asserted, "I ask the honorable gentlemen, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack it is idle to prepare the means of defense." Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion" and added that only powers "constitutionally given." Richard Dobbs Spaight at the North Carolina Ratification Convention maintained: "as to the subject of religion...(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an usurpation."
Nor was this understanding of the Constitution limited to those who attended the Constitutional convention. Identical arguments were made by such non-attenders as Issac Backus of Massachusetts, James Iredell and Samuel Johnston of North Carolina, and Thomas Tucker of South Carolina.
The First Amendment’s religion clauses are highly ambiguous. The word “religion” is not defined and the term “an establishment of religion” was novel in 1789. The first known interpretation of the First Amendment was that of Representative T. T. Tucker of S. C. who just days after the close of the First U. S. Congress wrote, “you will find our amendments calculated to amuse, or rather to deceive” in a letter dated September 30, 1789 to his brother, Saint George Tucker.
During the Early Years of the Republic a political contest was waged between two basic interpretations of the First Amendment. One view was that of the Jeffersonian Republicans who interpreted the Constitution to exempt religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, from the cognizance of the government. The other basic view was that of the Federalists who “held the Constitution to intend to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England.”
During what the great historian Sanford Cobb referrers to as the “Final Settlement” (from 1789 to 1833) the issue of religious liberty in the United States was settled in favor of the Jeffersonian Republican’s view that the duty which we owe to our Creator was exempt from the cognizance of the government. During the first 50 years of the Republic, the “non cognizance” interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, as articulated by James Madison, prevailed in every major political dispute over the meaning of the religion clauses.
One of the early political contests over the meaning of the establishment clause occurred in the U. S. House of Representatives in 1811 between the “non-cognizance” view of President James Madison and the “No National Church” interpretation of the Federalist.
Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madison’s 1811 veto of a bill incorporating an Episcopal Church in Alexandria in the District of Columbia. President Madison read the bill to establish rules and procedures, that could not be amended by the church, to govern the selection and removal of the minister of the church. Madison claimed the violated the establishment clause.
Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) was a Federalist with a devilish desire for government authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. During the House debates on Madison’s veto, he actually floated the idea of expanding and enlarging the two Congressional Chaplainships established in 1789 to impose a government-established religion over the entire ten miles square of the District of Columbia.
Wheaton argued that Madison’s establishment clause principle was incorrect because Congress had already established two religions “by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains.” Wheaton deemed the meaning of the establishment clause to be of very great consequence. Presidential Religious Recommendations[/U]
James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper prevailed in 66 of the first 74 years of the young Republic. President Madison himself made the mistake of trying to accommodate Congressional requests for proclamations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his four proclamations employed a form and language meant to stifle any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting his recommendation expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion. [Note 3]
President Madison's wartime proclamations - according to Representative Gulian Verplanck of New York, in an 1832 speech in the House of Representatives that helped to defeat an attempt to pass a joint resolution asking President Andrew Jackson to issue a fasting recommendation to the people - were kept with “too much of the old leaven of malice and bitterness” and the Gospel of the Savior was employed by ministers and politicians “to point political sarcasm and to rekindle partisan rage.
Future Congresses and Presidents took a lesson from President Madison’s wrong step of mixing religion and politics and every President from 1816 to 1860 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations under any circumstances. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending cholera epidemic and attempted to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House without even getting an up or down vote, when Gulian Verplanck of New York concluded his great speech by urging the House to "leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."
Congressional Prayer
Contrary to the widespread myth, there were no daily opening prayers in the First U S. Congress according to the official records. If you know of any evidence of morning prayers in the official records of the First Congress, please tell me where it is.
Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance
Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance, according to some, obligated the government to support religion in the Ohio Territory. The U. S. Congress believed that it did not and several attempts to enact legislation to "give legal effect" to the “support of the gospel” interpretation of Article III never even made it out of committee.
Sunday Mail Delivery
The Sunday Mail dispute raged from 1810 to the development of the telegraph and railroad train systems. The subject of the controversy was an 1810 post office law that required the transportation and opening of the mail on Sundays. There were numerous attempts by the “Christian Party” to convince Congress to repeal the 1810l law, but they all failed. Representative Colonel Johnson of Kentucky, chairman of the House Post Office Committee, issued a famous report in 1830 that adopted James Madison’s view that religion was exempt from the cognizance of the government. One of the many petitions from citizens supporting the 1810 Post Office law declared that the establishment clause was intended to, “Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence of any kind.”
Ten Commandment Displays in Federal Courts
The 1789 Judiciary Act did not include a requirement for the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts. I am not convinced that such a suggestion was actually introduced in Congress.
During the Early Years of the Republic (1789 to 1860) there were no disputes over “one Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God We Trust” on the nations coins or government displays of the Ten Commandments. The Federal Government respected God’s authority over the conscience of men and refrained from using its legislative authority to issue religious advice to the people.
Notes
[Note 1] “The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.” James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention 12 June 1788
[Note 2]: The establishment of the Congressional Chaplains may have been proposed and supported by some Congressmen merely to undermine the Separation of Church and State or to convince gullible constituents that the Congressmen were pious Christians. The Congressional Chaplains were clearly not established because most of the Congressmen wanted to attend morning religious services conducted by the Chaplains.
By all accounts, the Chaplains only performed morning prayers for the members of the House or Senate a few times during the first session of the First U. S. Congress and only a very few Congressmen actually attended the Chaplain’s morning services.
[Note 3] In 1812, it had been twenty-three years since Congress had requested the President to issue a religious recommendation. This strongly suggests that the First Congress did not believe that government religious recommendations were a wholesome practice except in extraordinary rare circumstances. Congress did not request the second proclamation by Washington nor the two proclamations issued by John Adams.
Additional Sources of Information:
Read Laban Wheaton’s argument for the No National Religion interpretation at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName...
Read the official record of the 71 to 29 vote in 1811 in the House of Representatives in favor of James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName...
Read New York Representative Gulion Verplacnk’s 1832 speech on the subject of Presidential Religious Recommendations at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName...
Read the 1801 petition citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, in the Northwest Territory praying for the support of the Gospel and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=...
Read about the 1802 announcement of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut that he would ask leave to bring in a bill the nest day to carry into effect the support for schools and religion in the Northwestern Territory. The official records show that Tracy did not attempt to introduce the bill. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName...
Read about the 1802 appointment of a House committee to inquire into the matter of support of religion within the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio. The committee never reported the question to the floor.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName...
Read about the Bill reported out of committee (but not passed) in 1828 that would have authorized the use of federal land in the State of Ohio for the support of religion.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-27-2006 1:04 AM macaroniandcheese 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