Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 32°F ~ Low: 27°F Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 |
|
Rerun Separation of Church and StatePosted Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 10:54 AM
It seems the discussions of the ACLU and others has brought forth several statements alluding to the faith of our Founding Fathers. Within these statements are references that are subjective, suspect and just plain myth.
Perhaps the most wide spread myth is that the Founding Fathers were Christian. This is far from the historical truth. Most were Deist, examples, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. Some were atheists for example Thomas Paine and a few, such as John Jay were devout Christians. This group, collectively, was among to the most learned ever assembled. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and had significant influence on the authorship of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution although he was out of the Country when they were written in final form. Nowhere in these documents is the word God, Jesus, Christ or Christian ever used. To imply from this historical distance they meant to but just didn't is a joke. They used the word Creator, which is the God of the Deist. This cannot be denied nor simplistically explained away. Thomas Jefferson was arguably the most educated man and the repository of more wisdom than any mortal man ever. John F. Kennedy put it more succinctly than I have ever seen reported when, at a White House dinner on April 29, 1962 for 46 Nobel Laureates he stated, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House……with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." (Simpson's Contemporary Quotations , `988 from Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962, p347. That we were founded as a Christian Nation is everywhere discounted in the historical record. The most cogent statement supporting this notion is found in Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797, (Now Turkey)…"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." This Treaty was negotiated under Washington and ratified under John Adams. Thomas Jefferson sat at a historical point in time when he was well aware of the history of the Christian Church. He knew well of the Dark Ages, twelve centuries whereby the Church and State were one and no advances in art, music, industry or thought were allowed to flourish. He knew of the Crusades where the Christian Church, using the power of the mightiest Governments of the day to try to wipe the Muslim Religion from the earth. (Could this be a little of the problem we seem to have with Islamic countries?). This prompted the requirement of the statement mentioned in the Treaty above. They also knew well colonial history of nearly 200 years in this Country. They knew the fiction of settlers fleeing England for religious freedom. These people had no intentions of respecting religious freedoms for they killed and maimed in most heinous ways those who did not believe as they did. They knew there were millions of people killed over the centuries by the Christian Church and the millions more by other religions and they resolved to stop it here. And they did magnificently. They also knew that at the signing of the Documents, some States/Colonies enforced the death penalty for missing church or not professing belief in the Trinity. There are those who seem to believe and would try to convince others to believe that the Constitution meant only that Government could not interfere with religion, but the historical record makes it clear it was to be a bilateral, not a unilateral treatment. The Founders feared more the stranglehold of the Church on the Government than the stranglehold of the Government on the Church. The saddest and most telling quality of those who believe the Government should be supportive of the Church is they are, apparently unknowingly, admitting, "My religion's tenets are so weak, I cannot convince people to accept them, therefore I need the power of the Government to force people to believe as I do." This is impossible as you cannot compel someone to believe something they are intellectually unsure of. If all people in these great United States were to sincerely live by the precepts of the Christian Church, we wouldn't be having this conversation. To get to this point can only be brought about by the Christian Church in the Churches, in the streets and in the communities. It will never happen through some rules and dictates of a governmental body. That's why religion is synonymous with faith for it means nothing without willing acceptance, not force. To adopt a strong view on separation and being a devout Christian are not mutually exclusive positions. Many Church leaders over the years have championed the "wall of separation" because they understand the historical significance of the reasons such is necessary. The organization of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was founded in the 1940s by a Baptist Minister and the current leader is an ordained Church of Christ Minister. So to paraphrase the statements mentioned in three of the Gospels, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" and accept the wisdom of history that one must not invade the province of the other. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Narcissism(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)
Sentencing
Election 2010
Gambling Update
Gambling Sentence
|
Email link
Read comments (44)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Carl,
Thanks for this blog. It IS a common misconception that all of the forefathers were devout Christians.
I just hope the ones that need to understand this read your thoughtful blog.
If this was a rerun, I am glad you re-posted it. It is a more accurate condensation of history than I was expecting to see in this forum. All this information has been known, but much of it has apparently been rationed out in small doses to the larger classes of citizens. I do wish you would have touched on the economic and security issues taking place in the run up to forming the constitution, but for a fairly easy to read overview on such a large and complicated subject, A+. Thanks.
Carl I love this blog.. So glad you re posted it.
The ones you mentioned may not have been , but the ones who founded the nation, the pilgrims and the puritans were .
I have as many quotes and documents that prove to me that we were founded on Christianity.
I guess it is all how you interpret them to.
John Adams
John Adams was born in 1735 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was a Harvard-educated lawyer, and a delegate to both the First and Second JohnAdamsContinental Congresses. A leader in the independence movement, he served diplomatically in France and Holland during the Revolutionary War. He was instrumental in negotiating the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War.
After the war, he served as minister to the Court of St. James, and then George Washington's Vice President before becoming the second president of the United States.
On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer for the country could "call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . ."
A few other quotes which demonstrate Adams' thoughts about Jesus are below.
On April 18, 1775, a British soldier ordered him, John Hancock, and others to "disperse in the name of George the Sovereign King of England. Adams responded to him:
"We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!"
In an October 13, 1789 address to the military, he said:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated June 28, 1813, he said
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity"
Michael,
The pilgrims and puritans were fleeing religious persecution. (The Church of England wasn't as laid back as it is today) and had no real intention of founding a nation as we know it. That came much later with the real founding fathers.
Anyone with a decent education knows this.
Whether it was founded on Christianity or not The leader of The faith is going to judge it.
In time Every Knee Will Bow and Every Tongue Will Confess That Jesus Is Lord!
I choose to do it now.
Michael, the pilgrims and puritans didn't "found America"... The people Carl mentioned, however did. People of the time had no interest in state sponsored religion, and very seldom (if ever) practiced any form of religious rituals (i.e. church). I, nor anyone here said a thing about answering to God about anything TODAY, Carl simply stated, very eloquently I may add, some truths about how the country began (officially)... Michael, simply explain why God, Jesus, nor Christianity is NEVER ONCE mentioned in the Constitution since you think the Framers of the Constitution were so sure our country had to be "Christian".. It is said, that many of the founders viewed religion as very important on a personal level, but useless within the government.
The "Puritans and Pilgrims" as well as Columbus and others, were not very 'Christian' people... They slaughtered, raped, and pillaged folks who didn't share similar beliefs...
Why are politicians sworn in on the bible , plus people at trials?
We can both find facts to back our side up so you ain't gonna change my beliefs or me yours either.
I also know that prayers to God and Jesus were given before meetings and big votes.
Even if it wasn't as you say it should have been.
Again, we are not talking about NOW.. We are talking about 200+ years ago. That's the difference. Politicians are sworn in on the Bible, but not to uphold the Bible, rather they swear to uphold the Constitution which makes NO mention of the Bible. People at trials do not have to use a Bible, it is just "standard procedure"... We have been through this a few different times. You're right, you won't change my mind, and I won't change your... And you won't change history regardless of how much you choose to ignore it.
michaelbell..........Thanks for your comments, but I don't believe I exposed my "beliefs" in this piece. I tried to stay with the facts and I welcome any question about the facts as I present them. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but the Constitution was directed exactly at people such as yourself that proposes to have all the answers.
If you take exception to the facts as I present them, then by all means point them out and we will discuss them. But to profess to have all the exact answers leaves little room for honest debate. Apparently, unlike yourself, God reckonizes there must be a civil authority over people else anarchy would reign.
I have no interest in your beliefs, they are yours and you are entitled to them, but beliefs are just that, not necessarily factual. As I alluded to, one adheres to a religeous philosophy on faith, not facts. Anytime one tries to prove their faith, they only, in my view, cheapen it.
Carl,
Great great article, just goes to show how educated individuals can discern fact from faith. Nothing wrong with faith as long as it doesn't distract from reality.
fact- I was supposed of died when I was two, I am now 40
fact My wife and me were told we could not have children of our own , we have 2
I could go on , but you wouldn't care,
Facts don't mean squat when God decides to intervene.
You were all over Darrick here while back now your joined at the hip.
No I can't prove my faith to you or anybody else .
It has been proved to me over and over.
Like I said if I am wrong I ain't lost nothing , if right you have lost it all.
Are you willing to gamble on your soul?
Not me!
That has nothing to do with the GOVERNMENT... and religion. Though we could use a little more of those stories in your own blog, instead of the hate and condemnation.
Btw, Carl and I aren't joined at the hip. We can agree on few and far between issues Michael.
Michael,
You already gambled your soul by your hypocrisy and blasphemy.
Fact - when you were 2, you had good doctors.
Fact - you wife had a doctor that probably took a bad sample.
God doesn't intervene, he hasn't for 2000 years.
Fact: He gave us the ability to do great things, but some of us just sit behind a computer and whine about the world instead of doing something about it.
Mr. Bell.....You just can't seem to get it......My piece is not anti-Christian. I say plainly believing in the separtation of church and state and being a devout Christian are not mutually exclusive propositions. Perhaps you don't understand this phrase.
Your statement, "If I am wrong I ain't lost nothing, if I am right you have lost it all." I had to read this several times to make sure I wasn't missing something. I simply can not believe the arrogance and ignorance of this statement. Where in my piece did I make any statement or allusion to what my beliefs are? What physic powers annoint you the ability to know what I think???
As for Darrick, you might consider reading the entire blog before you conclude you know what I think of Darrick. If you had you would know I bear no ill will towards Darrick. I suspect we would agree on more issues than we disagree on if truth be known.
I urge you to think things through before you act. It makes one no less a Christian, nor does it imply one condones the activities that result, if you recognize banning alcohol is much less desirable than legalization with tight regulations and enforcement.
Check the historical record on this one. Maybe you will have more luck.
Just as a point of interest, my oldest son is a graduate of Columbia Seminary. A three year, year-round Graduate program in training for the Ministery. This requires a Bachelor's degree before admission. Perhaps this is not as extensive as your education and training, but in any case, he agrees with me on this issue.
Mr. Bell...Your statement "I was supposed of(to) die when I was two." Don't you think this statement a little oxymoric? If you were supposed to die at age two, you would have died at age two.
the remark was made in general not towards you personally.
Em , according to man's facts I was supposed to die because of a severe illness.
What was that illness Michael? Be specific.
If you must know my lungs had collapsed and almost stopped working completely.
I was given 24 hours, but by prayer and the mission that God had for me I pulled through.
I am fulfilling that mission now.
Dear Mr. Bell,
To have been at the brink of death with both lungs collapsed at the age of two and, only given twenty four hours to live (by the doctor(s), assuming) then, awarded new life and a "mission" from God, is an amazing and wonderful story.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your fulfilling of that mission?
Carl,
I agree with your post on seperation of church and state at a federal level, but how about on a state by state level? I am a firm believer that the federal government has gotten way too big for its britches, and the states are gradually loosing individual rights.
Michael,
I think our founding fathers most likely had a far greater understanding of the seperation of church and state that you seem to give them. The folks that originally came to this country wanted religious freedom and did not want the government to tell them how they had to believe. As a side note, the KJV of the Bible was not even the version of the bible read in the colonial days, since most of those that came from England were fleeing from King James, the person that authorized that translation of the bible. The Geneva bible was widely used, along with several others, including the German bible.
I personally do not want the Federal government telling me how to believe or what my belief system should be. History itself has proven that many times over, i.e. Carl's example of the crusades.
Em,
Do you have any proof that God has or hasn't intervened in 2,000 years and was that time frame? Personally, the creation of life, any life(human,animal or plant), I think is a miracle and shows to me that God still does exist. I also have a father that should be by all rights not be here, but I firmly believe God does not have his heavenly home ready yet or he would be there. I have also worked in the medical profession for close to 20 years and think many of our modern medical wonders is a God that has given us humans the talent to be able to create them.
Sharon22,
Do you have proof he did? All you can say is believe, that isn't proof.
"I have also worked in the medical profession for close to 20 years and think many of our modern medical wonders is a God that has given us humans the talent to be able to create them."
This I can agree with. But it isn't a miracle.
Michael,
Where did this accident happen?
Sharon, I say amen to the Federal Government getting too big. As to the States, the 14th Amendment basically brought the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as governing standards to the States. To separate the States and allow them more autonomy would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Thanks for your comments.
I would say proof in my fathers case is the fact that at one point in his medical emergency he was by all medical standards dead and he is still with us with no neurological deficits and most amazingly no broken ribs from receiving CPR for several minutes. I have been in on many 80+ years olds that have had CPR and very few have not have broken ribs afterwards, if they made it through the "code." I have also had many folks, esp. the medical personal involved at the scene call my Dad a "medical miracle." I'm not quite sure what kind of "proof" you are wanting, but I sure have an easier time believing God played a part in this instead of it just being chance. If you have a different explanation for what occurred the please state your proof.
Carl,
I'll admit I'm not an authority on the 14th amendment, but it's interesting you use that to say it brought governing standards to the states. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 shortly after the civil war to give former slaves full rights as citizens, which was needed at the time. The southern confederate states were coerced into ratifing the amendment for being readmitted to the union. If I read the 14th correctly, it gives citizens civil liberties, but does not take away states rights. It is also interesting to note that Indians were not given full rights under this amendment and were actually excluded.
Not that anyone believes in miracles anymore, but I will explain anyway.
A healing can be explained a miracle can't that is why I say mine was a miracle.
I was in my stroller and I started turning blue when my parents rushed me to the local doctor who diagnosed it is a viral infection.
My parents did not accept the doctors diagnosis and rushed me to a specialist they had heard about.
I was very sick as a child so they were always looking for that one certain doctor who could fix me up.
When we reached the hospital I was semi- unconscious when I was put into the room and oxygen tent.
My parents said the next 24 years would tell the story for I was near death and there was nothing they could do.
My nearest family showed up and prayed to God all night.
Then a "presence" came into the room my family had all dozed off and the "presence woke me.
I was told that it was not my time and that I would know what God's plan was for me when it was time and no sooner or no later.
I am 40 now and know what God's plan is and that is to preach the gospel with conviction and if it offends so be it.
To many people are listening to a watered down version and are being led astray.
I have stuttered my whole life so when I knew that I was called to preach I was like Moses and told God to find someone else.
I am sure this will be dissected and ripped apart by my adoring friends on here , but that is fine for I know it is true for I keep in contact with the staff at the hospital who were there and they still call me a walking miracle.
As for being accused of spreading a plague with what I preach I beg to differ.
It is the truth and some can't handle it.
I truly believe I will be blessed with my own church to preach in so O will totally fulfill the call.
If I have one or a thousand and one people it would not matter for I am not in it for the money but to give God and his Son Jesus Christ all the glory.
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible printed in English, and helped change the world for the better for mankind.
John Calvin recieved the credit for this book being written in 1560.
It brought forth the importance of the Sabbath day which had been lost in time, and was the first Bible put into the hands of the common man so he could study it and, also the first Bible brought to the Americas.
The King James version brought attention to Paul's great declaration "There is neither Jew, Greek, bond, nor free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus". That verse brought forth the equality and worth of the females, and created the home as we know it now.
No, I don't think this nation was created to enhance Christians views, but it was created on the Christian principals that are now being eroded. The Government is now telling a person where,and when they may,or may not speak to their God, or about their God.
Freedom of speach doesn't include Christians any more. (RIGHT?)
The prophecies in the book of Revelation are being more revealed each year.
Seems to me,we are heading into days that will be more difficult than those in Bloody Mary's time.
No, you can speak to your god ANYWHERE.. You just can't force anyone else to Jesse.
Jesse,
Hmm, Now I see where you feel a little bitter about your rights. I think someone has misled you somehow, someway. You have a right to worship, pray, read the Bible anywhere you want. The problem arises is, for example, I am walking by and you come up and ask me to pray with you and I say No I need to finish something, but you insist. At this point, my rights are being violated.
The Government is the main problem, even our President uses God's name for why he went to war. This seems to be a growing trend among alot of Fanatical Christians; and they wonder why people are leaving in masses?
Sharon.........The 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The sentence in the above, "No State shall make or enforce....." Has been held by the Courts to mean the Bill of Rights must rule State laws. I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is, for instance, equal protection considerations in Federal Court are governed by the 5th Amendment and in State courts by the 14th.
I agree the impetus for the 14th amendment was to protect freed slaves primarily, but the courts have read it, correctly for the most part I believe, as having far broader application. I note that it was actually in 1870 and the 15th Amendment that insured the right to vote of all citizens regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But not sex.
Isn't it rather interesting that women had to wait until 1920 and the 19th amendment to vote? Black men could vote 50 plus years before women. Strange but true.
You are certainly correct about the Native Americans. They were not considered citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, but they were denied the right to vote for another 20 years. Most of the opposition, I think, and some of the controversity even today revolves around their status, on their reservations, as sovereign Nations to some degree or other.
I apologize for stretching the subject of the blog, but your concerns were interesting and shows you to be a thoughtful person. I thank you for your well reasoned comments.
Darrick I agree with your comment. Jesse and Em also, I think Mr. Bell and others don't understand the simple notion you have a right to your religion and a right to free speech, but you do not have a right to compell me to listen.
Carl,
I had not read the 14th before so found it interesting esp. about the Indians. I love studying history and learning, which I have just from our conversation. Good stuff, keep writing.
Monkey
You can Humm and Humm.
I WILL STAND ON WHAT I SAID.
I am not as an eloquent speaker as most of you are, but I believe you can understand my meaning when I say " You are as full of it as a Christmas turkey" if you believe what you say.
The ACLU just lost A case against a Baptist school in Anchorage, Alaska for teaching Christiainty. Don't tell me how free this country has become when it involves Christians.
Mr. Carl, I don't push my belief on anyone unless they bring up the subject. If you don't want to hear my beliefs, don't write articles on Christianity, and you will never hear it from me.
PS
You did have some good thoughts in your article.
Jesse,
I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment of your particular situation. But in a public area there is a difference. The ACLU would lose in a private Baptist school battle, but in a public school that is a different story.
As for me Full of a christmas turkey, I think you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Hope you like a little crow too.
Your best bet would have to just read what I said instead of try to attack me. Now you look like a tool.
monkey
Your wrong it has spilled over into the private sector. Why would anyone believe that a ptivate Baptist school's main goal would not be to teach about Christ, along with what the state said was necessary. That is the reasons the schools are growing.
PS
WE can bump heads more often now my contract has been fulfiled made my last long trip. See you more often.
LOL glad you had a safe trip.
Actually I attended a Private Baptist School in Metro Washington DC area. It was a great school but it wasn't their main goal to teach me about Christ. Yes it was part of it. Their main goal is to educate someone to be ready to achieve goals in a world marred with idiocy and self-doubt. It was shown to me how to be self-confident on my own abilities and to know when I needed to ask for help and who to trust for that help.
For someone to say, that their main goal was to teach religion to children is absolutely wrong. Do you go to college to just learn Marketing? No, you need to learn English, Math, Science and a variety of other things to be well-rounded individual so you aren't a one tune wonder. Sound like someone familiar? Thats how you can tell someone is un-educated, they cannot talk about other things or discern fact from fiction...
Good comment EM. The home is for teaching about religion and the best way to do that is by example. BTW the only info I could find about this particular issue was a lawsuit regarding the tax exempt status of homes belonging to some of this schools leaders, and while we might have differing views of the legitimacy of this, I do think its in the public interest to have these issues legally decided so the public knows where the lines are drawn.
As a Christians we need to understand that separation of church and state is a two edged sword. I have equal interests in keeping the state out of church business and keeping the church out of state business. I don't think you can have one without the other.
My only complaint with recent lawsuits is that we seem to be crossing the line as to what is legally offensive into the area of what is offensive to individual beliefs. I don't think there is a right not to be offended if it does not involve legal coercion to conform to a particular religion. I guess that is where the ACLU as well as ADF have to make their arguments.
devan,
I totally agree, I don't think the ACLU should be involved in any private sectors like private schools etc. I have no issues with students taking Bibles of whatever religion to school, I don't have problem with them praying whereever they want. The problem I do have is whether a teacher opens their Bible and uses it as a teaching tool. The students under that teacher has no choice in the matter. This goes both way, Muslim teachers can do that to Christian children etc. This is why there is a seperation of Church and State.
I appreciate all the comments, but hope this blog doesn't get bogged down in the sometime mindless minutia of another blog, which shall remain nameless.
I think it is rather obvious that to be a proper, devout Christian one simply needs to believe, not prove. To try to prove the lessons of the Bible by citing the Bible is rather ingenous. One can not prove the events of Moby Dick, for instance by only using Moby Dick as a reference source. Where am I missing the point?
No one is a Christian without faith that the Bible's exortations are true and God driven. Key work faith. Faith means believing unconditioinally, not proving.
Just my thoughts.
In the immediately prior post, I mistakenly said ingenous. I meant to say disingenous.
carl,
I agree wholeheartedly, You cannot use the Bible to prove something as Fact when the Bible itself is a Faith-driven in itself. Especially when the Bible has been re-written, books removed, replaced, edited numerous times.