Radorth

It seems to me that "Separation Activists" employ only the most pedantic, legalistic interpretations of the Constitution to determine the intent of the founders, their vision for the future, and the supposedly "secular" worldviews of the leading (as they define it) Founders. They obviously put every safeguard against religious persecution (I thank them profusely) or control by any sect. But the fact is, the vast majority of them not only lived by the Gospel of Jesus, but wished it spread around.

So we are left by them with some tough practical questions. Why did Jefferson encourage church services in the Capitol and how did he determine which were acceptable? Why did so many worry about the future of a country where "religious" (their word) instruction was rare? Is it so that they venerated the teachings of Jesus with "nothing added" as Jefferson put it? Did Washington really mean "...and above all the Religion of Jesus Christ..." should be taught to the morally ignorant? Did they not take it for granted and even hope that the morals of Jesus and the Apostles would be taught hand in hand with the latest discoveries of science? Did they think the two were somehow unfriendly to each other? Did they facilitate the teaching of Jesus' "religion" in the schools? Why or why not?
Would they encourage or discourage the reading of the NT in public schools as a means of moral instruction? Why or why not?

Did the vast majority fear for the future of a country which became more secular than their new creation, as De Toqueville described it, or less secular in spreading the teachings of "Jesus himself"?

Rad

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

From the other thread:

Jefferson, to wit:

The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them. (Writings, Vol XIV, P149)

No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also. (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).

Rad

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

I let the enigmatic Washington speak for himself here:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.


(Farewell Address)

Rad

Daggah

I don't know. Why don't we ask them?

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." - Thomas Jefferson

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

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

"Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'" - James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory

Does anyone here REALLY care what De Tocqueville thinks? Why is Radorth so obsessed with him. Not only is he NOT a founding father, he's also NOT American. And hurting Radorth's case even further is the fact that he wasn't even alive when the Constitution was drafted!

"Most pedantic legalistic interpretations of the Constitution." LOL. This must be what Radorth calls actually knowing what the document says.

Daggah

Hell, if De Tocqueville counts in this "debate," so do Teddy Roosevelt quotes:

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." - Theodore Roosevelt

hezekiah jones

Radorth muses:
It seems to me that "Separation Activists" employ only the most pedantic, legalistic interpretations of the Constitution to determine the intent of the founders, their vision for the future, and the supposedly "secular" worldviews of the leading (as they define it) Founders.

As usual you've got it ass backwards. Here's what the establishment clause says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" It's unfortunate that the equivocal nature of the phrase "no law" inspires such pedantic legalism.

According to statutory construction (a concept I suggest you investigate) it is the intent of the legislation in question that is held up to constitutional scrutiny, to varying degrees, often depending on judicial philosophy, not the other way around. Hence, "statutory construction," not "constitutional construction."

Since the Court generally doesn't intervene in questions of statutory construction on its own accord, its up to those defending the constitutionality of the legislation to argue that the statute conforms to the Constitution, not the reverse.

Radorth

The questions your semi-relevant quotes do not answer are listed in my opening statement.

And of course the "wall" did not prevent Jefferson from facilitating nor attending church services in public buildings.

No one asked if Roosevelt wanted the schools to stop teaching religion. However we can discuss whether the Framers would have entirely agreed with Roosevelt.

Rad

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Heh. Even Roosevelt's comment speaks to supporting sectarian goals, not religious or moral teaching. I doubt he would have objected to kids reading from the Bible. In 1905 the Congress had printed some 9000 "Jefferson Bibles" for use by the Congress, and at public expense. I doubt he complained, given the President's usual opinion of the morals of Congress.

Rad

Daggah

And I doubt that you've read the Constitution. Therefore, you haven't read the Constitution.

Let me introduce a new logical fallacy, ladies and gentlemen. I call it the argument from doubt. Its form is "I doubt that &lt;x&gt; is true, so therefore &lt;x&gt; must be false."

Daggah

Documentation? You've shown a remarkable lack of ability to understand certain terms.