Separation between church and state

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.

I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation?  I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm.  How's that weak?  It's a valid point.  No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.

Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either.  []
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.  
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.

Don't let RW or Hoss try to convince you that you are right or wrong. Hoss is such an intellectual midget that I have put him on ignore. As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.  

Again, welcome and I look forward to your contributions.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

Well isn't that weak? Since I haven't personally spoken to Washington, my arguement based on quoting his words at length is invalid.
Yet you supprt arguents based on misintepretations of small, taken out of context, snips his words.
Facts are facts. And it is clear that Washington believed that religious morality was an important aspect of the new nation he helped to found.
But, it is also true that our founding fathers believed in religious freedom. And therefore did not believe in a MANDATED Government religion as was in England.
Yet everything from our money, inscriptions on public buildings, the facts that the huge majority of elected representitives have historically been sworn in w/hand on a Bible. Points to the fact that the GOD refered to was the Christian God. That these people were Christians. And founded this nation based on Christian principle.
And that for over 200 years, few citizens had a problem w/it.
Now things are changing. And if you are one of the "peculiar minds" Washingon spoke about. You have every right to reject Christianity and attempt to influence THE FUTURE of the nation based on your religious, or lack of, belief.
All I'm saying is that you can not rewrite history.

I was of the mind you were saying that the founders intended that this was to be a Christian nation?  I was asking if you talked to Washington directly to confirm.  How's that weak?  It's a valid point.  No one will know exactly how the founders, especially GW, intended on organized religion (which, IMO, is a sham) to be integrated into our government.

Wouldn't by the same measure, your agruement that the that they did not intend a Christian nation be equally invalid. I'm quite certain you have not personally spoken to Washington or any of the other founders either.  []
Therefore I can take satisfaction in a small victory.  
Or would you concede that we must make our determinations based on historical record. Which if you do, I will, armed w/historical fact, continue to shoot your arguement full of holes.

Don't let RW or Hoss try to convince you that you are right or wrong. Hoss is such an intellectual midget that I have put him on ignore. As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.  

Again, welcome and I look forward to your contributions.

Haha!  I feel blessed that I have rankled someone so much they feel the need to put me on ignore.

Thank you, King of the Ad Hominem!

Wait a minute!  You won't even see this since I'm on IGNORE.  Wheee!!!

[8D]

[RecycleMichael]

I am related to George Washington by marriage. His wife had many sisters, one of who moved to Missouri and bred on my mther's side. Thus, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on what Washington meant with his words.

I believe it was something along the lines of, "whatever".

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

As for RW, while he is correct that CF is a bright guy, he is also CF's biggest cheerleader.  

Am not. RecycleMichael outweighs me by 15 pounds or so.

[RecycleMichael]

Go cannon fodder!

I want to be the cheerleader who gets to be on the top of the pyramid. Who is going to volunteer to be the base?

[cannon_fodder]

Fatstrat, 2 more things:

1) The person bringing the notion has the burden of proof.  The notion was raised that this was intended to be a Christian Nation and George Washington, specifically his farewell address, was raised in support of that notion.  

In response I posted the supporting facet from the farewell address that you referenced.  I then pointed out the shortcomings in that analysis and posted a litany of quotes from well known founding fathers that are frequently hostile to what we recognize as the Christian religion.   Thus suggesting that the idea that the founders wanted a Christian Nation is a more modern creation and a misconstrued notion.

In response to that you attack on the Washington point again.  Not with any new evidence or suggestions, but by calling my assertions laughable.   When I suggest that you read up on the topic you are debating you tell me that you don't have to prove my point...

I'm not asking you to.  I'm asking you to support your own proposition.  Simply saying it is so and demanding someone prove it is not doesn't work.  See, e.g., Russel's teapot.

2) For the sake of argument I'll acquiesce and say that Washington wanted nothing more than to have a fundamentalist sectarian state based on Christian Doctrine and laws.  He would then be a coward and a traitor to his faith for making no effort towards this goal and signing off on treaties, policies, and a constitution that goes to lengths to prevent this end.  The most powerful man in the colony failed at his goal.

Which must mean that the litany of other founding fathers wanted to prevent a Christian Nation more than Washington wanted to found one.  Washington was an eloquent communicator and much of that communication is preserve in writing and record.  The other Fathers were equally adept at oration, drafting, and letter writing and their thoughts are well documented on the subject.  Please keep in mind that pamphlets, newspapers, speeches, letters and posted documents were instrumental to the War of Independence and have survived history - none that I have seen asking for soldiers to fight for a Christian Nation, or to cast off the oppressive British for Jesus, or the like.

Had they wanted a Christian Nation, surely one of them would have figured out how to request one and put the notion forth.  If it was done, it was not well received.  If it was intended, then they uncharacteristically failed at getting their point across.

Ignore the merit of Washington.  He's one tree in the forest.  There is plenty of evidence to suggest many of the founders were religious (some were ministers of varying faiths) and still others hostile to religion.  There is little evidence to suggest the notion of a Christian Nation was ever given consideration.
- - - - -


Damn proud of me cheer squad!  Now all I need to do is get them to agree with me more often and financially contribute to my causes (me).  And Guido, you're just a closeted member of my cheer squad.  You might not know it yet though. []

[fairlycrazy23]

I think the founding fathers can be describe as mostly an agnostic group.

[fairlycrazy23]

Oh, and if the founding fathers wanted a christian state, i'm fairly sure they could have come up with better wording for the 1st amendment.

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I am related to George Washington by marriage. His wife had many sisters, one of who moved to Missouri and bred on my mther's side. Thus, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on what Washington meant with his words.

I believe it was something along the lines of, "whatever".

Interesting.It never occurred to me that family lineage would be of relevance. I am a relative (by marriage) of John Hart who signed the Declaration of Independence. And a descendant of Joab Houghton, who was a Colonel in Washington's Army. And to whom a monument is erected in Hopewell NJ.  
Cannon Fodder: Do you think I would have referenced Washington's Farewell Address had I not had some knowledge of the subject?

[cannon_fodder]

1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.

2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one.  If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals.  Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.

3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address.  Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian.  He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation.  He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else.  If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.  

In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on.  I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship.  To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.

The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.  And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow.  Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).

4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.

I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please.  Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit.  So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.

In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone.  Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs..  If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so).  But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.  

Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree?  Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world?  Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree?  Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world?  Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?

Yes.[]

[cannon_fodder]

Well then, touche.  [xx(]

[Fatstrat]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.

2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one.  If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals.  Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.

3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address.  Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian.  He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation.  He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else.  If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.  

In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on.  I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship.  To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.

The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.  And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow.  Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).

4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.

I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please.  Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit.  So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.

In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone.  Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs..  If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so).  But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.  

Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree?  Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world?  Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?

I think we can agree that the founders wanted religious freedom and expressed that in their amendment that there be no govt. mandated religion.
Where we differ is your position that the govt. cannot be religious. There is not and has not been a mandated religion in the U.S. But it is obvious that the majority of our founders, and the citizens of the nation, have largely been Christians. And therefore the nation and it's Govt. has always been a Christian nation. As evidenced by the Christian motto's on our money, our public buildings, and even the Christian Bible Obama took his oath on.
Our Govt is (supposed to be) a Govt, BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. And if the people are predominantly Christian, and the reps they elect are Christians, then you have a Christian Govt.    
Nowhere is it said that other religions are unwelcome or may not exercise their beliefs both in public or govt. And nowhere is it said that Christians are not afforded the same freedom in either venue.
You my friend, are the ones who seek to restrict religious freedom.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) I believe the content if not the fact of RM's post was tongue in cheek.

2) Washington's address mentions religion - it doesn't specify, hint, or allude to which religion he thinks is the right one.  If he wanted a Christian Nation, surely he was bright enough to have specified which religion he thought was so important to morals.  Or, for that matter, to attribute the morals brought by religion to God.

3) HOWEVER, I acquiesced on Washington's address.  Anyone who speaks fondly of religion is clearly a devote Christian.  He was a fundamentalist who very much wanted a Christian Nation.  He merely failed to put it into writing or ever communicate it to anyone else.  If that is what you are advocating, or whatever you are trying to advocate in this regard - you can have it.  

In such a way we can move away from the myopic topic of Washington and address the Christian Nation topic head on.  I start with the premise that our nation has a long legacy of being deeply involved with the Judeo-Christian values and much of our legacy reflects that relationship.  To counteract that notion, I submit that our founding people came seeking religious freedom and our founding fathers went to great lengths to protect that freedom.

The underlying tenants of our laws and culture reflect many teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.  And those same teaching can be attributed to Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster, Xenu, or whichever of many organized religion you wish to follow.  Coming up with laws for followers to live by is what religions spend most of their time doing - it should be no surprise that governments come to many of the same conclusions (one step removed: I would argue that at the core most religions started off akin to governments, that is to say hierarchical control of the masses by a set of dictated laws and common practices).

4)In fact, we could probably skip huge swaths of pointless debate if intentions goals and perspectives were made clear.

I want government to leave religions alone to do as they please.  Believe as they see fit and practice or worship as they see fit.  So long as their right to religion does not infringe on my right to be free from religion there should be no governmental involvement.

In exchange, I want religions to leave government alone.  Policies, international relationships, social statutes, monetary and tax codes should not be written to appease religious beliefs..  If they conform to those religious beliefs and have sound secular reasoning then so be it (reason other than my book/God(s)/pastors says so).  But at the expense of secular reasoning religious providence should be no substitute.  

Are you advocating for a theocracy? If so, along which vein of Christianity and to what degree?  Shall I assume Roman Catholic because that is the majority Christian religion in the nation and the world?  Do we outlaw other Religions or just put them on notice that their silly beliefs are wrong (alien space Gods, Jesus in America, philosophy as God... idiots!)?

I think we can agree that the founders wanted religious freedom and expressed that in their amendment that there be no govt. mandated religion.
Where we differ is your position that the govt. cannot be religious. There is not and has not been a mandated religion in the U.S. But it is obvious that the majority of our founders, and the citizens of the nation, have largely been Christians. And therefore the nation and it's Govt. has always been a Christian nation. As evidenced by the Christian motto's on our money, our public buildings, and even the Christian Bible Obama took his oath on.
Our Govt is (supposed to be) a Govt, BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. And if the people are predominantly Christian, and the reps they elect are Christians, then you have a Christian Govt.    
Nowhere is it said that other religions are unwelcome or may not exercise their beliefs both in public or govt. And nowhere is it said that Christians are not afforded the same freedom in either venue.
You my friend, are the ones who seek to restrict religious freedom.

You are making this easy.

What if an Hasidic Jew were to take the Oath?  Would he do so on the Christian Bible?  Would we then have a Hasidic government?

If you are saying that just because the Christian Faith is predominant in the country, what about state governments where that isn't the case?  How about Utah?  Should they be practicing those ideals that Mormons practiced?

The government, any government, state, local or federal, should NOT be in the business of dictating what religion it should align itself with, nor should it strive to be a theocracy.  I'm seeing that from your posts, that you wish this nation would become a Christian Nation.  That's what got England in trouble that drove out the Pilgrims to the New World.

It's pretty narrow-minded IMO to think that people aren't sensitive to that.  You come off sounding like a preachy bible-wielder hellfire and brimstone type.

Religious freedom means the freedom to practice your specific religion.  It doesn't mean to allow government to mandate it.

But that's just my opinion.

[cannon_fodder]

Christian motto on the money?

"In God We Trust."

"On Nation Under God."

Those are not Christian mottoes.  They are generic references. May as well argue that we are mostly Greek because of the Goddess of Justice and "E Pluribus Unum."  

Furthermore, those sayings have NOTHING to do with the founding fathers.  In God We Trust was added after the Civil War (nearly 100 years after the founding fathers) for fear that the new fangled pictures of death would cause future generations to believe the Civil War era was Godless.  Legally speaking, it has been held that the motto is a common usage and has no "significant religious content."  If it had religious content it would have been stricken from our coinage.   Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668.  Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.html (last visited 02/03/09).

One Nation Under God was added to the pledge during the Red Scare to separate ourselves from those Godless Communists.  A leftover from the 1950's.  It goes to prove that form was way more important than function in the McCarthy hysteria (we're better than you because we have GOD in our national pledge!).

The relgious icons on our buildings are offset by images of scales of justice, Confucius, Solon, Lady Liberty, Octavian, Napoleon, Hammurabi, the much hyped "10 Commandments" tablets are NOT the 10 commandments but an illustration of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) according to the person who created the sculptures.  Hell, even Mohamed appears on the walls in Washington DC (not a new addition mind you).  Arguing that we are a Christian Nation on symbols engraved on our buildings is a dubious proposition.  

I understand your sentiment and have given it to you.  Most Americans are Christian and most of our customs and norms reflect those beliefs.  That is NOT the same as being a Christian Nation as we do not reject or accept  beliefs on the basis of religion (science advancements everywhere thank you for that).

In fact, the founding fathers specifically rejected the notion of a Christian Nation in the Treaty of Tripoli.  Were they lying hypocrites are not?

quote:AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION;

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.  May 26th 1797.  Submitted by John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate.  (as much as it pains me, the best scanned version is available at wikipedia).

There it is, in black and white.  The United States President in an official Treaty of the United States said we were not a Christian Nation.  Ratified by the US Senate in the time of the Founders.

Furthermore, you have avoided the notion that they could easily have included language in the Constitution declaring this a Christian Nation.  Or assigning the religion of majority that noble status.  They didn't.  They told government to stay away from religion and religion to stay away from government.

I believe what you are failing to grasp is the assumption of a particular religion by the Government of the United States is precluding other religions.  If our Courthouse lawn proclaims the greatness of Jesus Christ, most Muslims or Jews would assume they would not get a fair trial.  The Courts in Pakistan are secular Courts, but if they had you swear on a Holy Koran and bow to the Prophet Mohamed - certainly an American Christian would be up in arms that it wasn't a fair trial (they would not have imagery of Mohamed).  

Under your interpretation, anything is OK short of "I, the United States Government, declare Christianity as the ONLY allowable Religion."  Fortunately, it takes much less than that to appear to "adopt" a religion or to prohibit the "free exercise" of religion.  A school across the street from a church is not a problem - but favoring one deity over another in any capacity is.

You are free to practice your religion as you see fit. You are free to run for Congress wearing your religion on your sleeve.  You are free to stand on street corners and proclaim your religion.  You are allowed to tell others religions that their beliefs are stupid.  In public or in private, YOU are allowed to express whatever religious beliefs you want.

The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to.  See the difference?  When official governmental actions are taken to promote one religion or to adopt aspects of that religion for the sake OF religion, you are forcing it upon others.  The only thing I am attempting to restrict if your ability to force your religion onto others.  

Hence, declaring the United States as a Christian Nation, placing the 10 Commandments alone outside the Courthouse, or if a Bible were required to swear in a president - I would object.   And the Founding Fathers as well as the Courts they have left to adjudicate such things are on my side.


(sorry, had to)

Why is it so important to broadcast your religious identity on others?  You're Christian, I get it.  But the country is not.