theophilus

This statement is false and I challenge you to provide an example of Christian leaders cliaming special privileges.

Autonemesis

You should not. This objection of yours is impossible to ameliorate.

If god is to be mentioned in school, then religious leaders will object to the terms used, or want to get the phrasing just right to suit their particular sect's views. This brings us right to the heart of the establishment clause, and its prohibition of just such activity.

But if god is not mentioned, then this is "inculcating atheism/materialism". Your false dichotomy sets up a no-win situation, which cannot be resolved. If the establishment clause means that what you consider to be atheism/materialism is inculcated, then too bad for you. Change the constitution, or change your attitude towards it.

But do not blame atheists for not getting your way on this issue, or for inculcating your children. That's ball is way foul.

Shadowy Man

But the Constitutions of virtually every state mention the "Almighty God" in one form or another -
I think it is exceedingly notable that the U.S. Constitution does not mention God or religion.

If "Christian belief ... was assumed as the foundation of civil government" as you say, why did all of the states mention God in their Consitution, but the Federal Government didn't?

Ab_Normal

Yes, let's not return to the era of the Philadelphia Bible Riots, where people were killed over the issue of which version of the Bible to use in religious education in the public schools.

PopeInTheWoods

"Inculcate a culture of atheistic/materialism"??? Where, when, and how? As far as I know, public schools don't tell their students to be atheists, neither do they prohibit nor even discourage their students' religious activities outside of school, or even in school as long as it doesn't interfere with the primary purpose of education. It would be just as wrong for a teacher to declare to her class that no gods exist or to punish theists simply for believing, as it would be for her to lead students in prayer or tell non-theists that they're going to hell.

If a public school or employee is abusing authority to promote atheism, let me know and together we'll sic the ACLU on them. What schools should be doing is remaining strictly neutral on religious issues, neither promoting nor persecuting theism or atheism.

Andy

GaryP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GaryP
Many, or perhaps all, of these Founders would have called themselves Christians. Most historians would call them Deists. That is, they believed in a “Creator” but not a personal God of revelation as most of today’s Christians do.

Theophilus wrote;

This is a popular but false assertion which is contradicted by two facts:
1. Diesm, as a system, did not become prominent until later, c 1830.
2. Most of these men were AVOWED Christians and their public statements contradict the Deistic assertion, e.g., "the longer I live, the more I am convinced that God rules in the affairs of men," Benjamin Franklin (paraphrase).


Just because it wasn't called Deism till 1830 does not mean that it wasn't , in fact, what they were practicing. Do you disagree that most historians would call them Deists?

I agree that many or maybe even all of them called themselves Christian , but many were not the type of Christian who believes in a god who guides their day-to-day lives.

But all this is moot. The laws of our land are based on the Constitution. The only mention of religion in it is to admonish the Congress from establishing it.

Theophilus wrote;

And what was the Constitution based on? It would be instructive for you to read the constitutions of all the 13 Colonies from the Mayflower Compact on.
Here is the point (and I confess that this is usually missed by Christian patriots), America is a Christian nation because if's "form" of government is based on the Christian idea of man and government.
In the same way, American is NOT a Moslem nation, or a Hindu nation, a Catholic nation or, for that matter, an atheistic nation. None of these systems have ever given rise to a free, republican government.

Why would the founders NOT include religion when they had from May through Sept. to consider it? If it were so important, why did they not include it? Perhaps they understood how destructive those colonial constitutions had been and made a deliberate attempt to put distance between govt. and churches.

There is no mention of God, Jesus or any of their aliases.

Theophilus wrote;

There are two reasons for this:
1. Christian beliefe was so pervasive that it was assumed as the foundaiton of civil government. This had already been established in the Declaration of Independence.
2. The Constitution was not creating a new nation; it was "constituting" a new form of government for an existing nation. It was not arguing for the legitimacy of forming a government of free men.

Why would the founders NOT include religion when they had from May through Sept. to consider it? If it were so important, why did they not include it? The convention apparently did not even officially consider Franklin's suggestion for an invocation each day. And , the Declaration speks of god in Deistic terms.



This country is for ALL of its citizens. To claim one group has a special place in it is unjust and, indeed, un-American.

Theophilus wrote;

Amen! This is absolutely correct. The issue is not that "one group" has a special place. The issue, what worldview gave rise to the liberty we ALL enjoy and whether those liberties will endure if the foundaiton is destroyed.

I'm glad we agree on the important part about how the Constitution is met for all Americans! I would guess, though, that if you took a poll of Constitutioanl experts, the vast majority would mention leaders of the Enlightenment as a major influence of the Founders worldview. Certainly, NOT the Bible.

theophilus

I don't think I "blamed" atheists, did I? I simply pointed out that there is an unavoidable choice in any education system regarding theistic/atheistic issues. There is no neutrality - that is a myth; to exclude God is to deny God.

I'm sure you would agree with Jefferson that to compel people (Christians) to pay taxes for the propagation of ideas that are contrary to conviction is unlawful.

theophilus

Well, your guess would be incorrect. If you want to trace the political legacy of the Enlightenment, you must look to revolutionary France, not the US.
This attempt to superimpose a Continental framework on the US requires that you deny the historical development of US from independent colonies which were distinctly Christian in the orientation and their purposes.

StrictSeparationist

Ugh, what utter bullshit. Neutrality is where schools are now. If the schools were attempting to "inculcate" atheism, they wouldn't even allow religious topics to be stuided from a secular viewpoint. As is, the schools aren't allowed to express any official opinions on the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, which is the way it should be. And even if you disagree with my assertion that the schools are neutral, the solution would be to force them to become more neutral, not to force them to incorporate theism.

gravitybow

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.] It happened that they wrought an effect on me 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" [Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in The American Tradition in Literature, seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180]


Hmmm. Seems to me Franklin confirms the Deistic assertion.