Church/state Wall

[Gilbert_Keith]

THE CHURCH/STATE WALL

Yes, Jefferson was right to use this phrase. But what did he mean by it? Did he mean what the ACLU often claims he meant … that every mention of God and religion must be removed from public assemblies? Or did he simply mean that no Church denomination was to gain control of the government and enjoy the support of the people through public taxation?

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – *that God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

After a brief discussion, the motion was approved.

Can anyone today seriously contend that the founding fathers meant to stamp out the religious foundations upon which the American system is based? Can anyone now seriously say that the phrase “under God” should be stricken from the pledge, or that the laws of Moses are counter to the spirit present at the Constitutional Convention and that they should be removed from every courthouse in the land?

 

[BioCatholic]

the founding fathers FOUGH AND FOUGHT AND FOUGHT over the language used in the constitution. even the SLIGHTEST word, adverb, adjective, there were serious concerns about HOW they would be INTERPRETED.

“no religious test shall be required of any office…”

does that mean written test? oral test? spiritual test? it was written that was for a specific purpose. the FRAMER’s INTENT is plain and clear. no test PERIOD.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

NOUN establishment “get out of my establlishment you drunk!!!”
VERB the establishment of the highway system helped…

it precludes BOTH, i.e. the ACT of establishing a national religion, and the actual entity of the religion itself were it to be “established”

what it comes down to: there are jews, muslims, christians, atheists, ect in the US. the government may not favor one over another, period. the gov’t cannot just pick a religion as the “correct” one. coming to prayer in schools.

how many of you would be in favor of bringing it back PROVIDED
Monday: class prays a muslim prayer
tuesday: class prays a hindu prayer
wednesday: class prays a christian prayer and so on.

thats how it has to work. a STATE sponsored school just cant lend favor to a religion by making it the only acceptable one to pray to during school. the government must EQUALLY represent all persons, whether they have faith or not.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Should we expect a non-Christian state, one that values liberty over submission to God, one that values freedom of speech over the authority of Jesus, to pay heed to our Christian doctrine?

(Before anyone jumps to conclusions…I am happy to live here.)

God bless,
Aaron

 

[BioCatholic]

aaronjmagnan:

…values liberty over submission to God, one that values freedom of speech over the authority of Jesus, to pay heed to our Christian doctrine?

God bless,
Aaron

what you are describing is a THEOCRACY. the founders recognized that the people must have the free will to “pursue happiness”, even if it entailed turing away from God. you simply cannot force someone to accept God. again, for government to work, ALL persons must be represented and treated fairly, and ALL subject to laws that ensure “equal protection”. that means a person cannot be punished for turning away from God by the government, because that person may no longer believe in and accept that faith as true. therefore, they cannot be held accountable for violating such doctrine i.e. failing to attend mass, or blaspheming, or divorcing.

the state must have a “compelling interest” to invade the private lives of its citizens. the state has no interest whatsoever to dictate how and if a person obeys God, so long as that person does not infringe on another person’s rights. i.e. murder or rape/theft ect.

our laws, at the core, are ethical in nature, written to ensure:

“the maximum amount of personal freedom that does not encroach on another’s personal freedom”

that means, no one has the buisiness to dictate whether a [of consenting age] couple can use contraception, have sex before marriage, have a homosexual relationship ect.

the state simply has no “compelling interest” as decided in Griswold, Lawrence, and others. Griswold does not INVENT a right to privacy, it merely gives creedance to the “compelling interest” clause in the constitution.

 

[dcdurel]

BioCatholic:

the founding fathers FOUGH AND FOUGHT AND FOUGHT over the language used in the constitution. even the SLIGHTEST word, adverb, adjective, there were serious concerns about HOW they would be INTERPRETED.

“no religious test shall be required of any office…”
.

Of course, that means if someone is to appointed as a supreme court judge, then if that person is Catholic in his religion and his religion says that all persons have equal dignity thus, abortion is murder, and if that person believes that all laws must not contradict God’s laws, as determined by the Catholic Church, then congress cannot pass judgement on his religion and exclude him from office because of his religious beliefs.

There shall be no test. Correct?

 

[dcdurel]

BioCatholic:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

And if the United States Post office, on its own, wants to promote the God and place banners on each post office saying “In God we Trust”, then since the Post office is NOT part of congess, then it may do so, correct?

Thus, states are free to promote any religion they want to promote, since states are not part of congress. Is that correct?

 

[dcdurel]

BioCatholic:

what it comes down to: there are jews, muslims, christians, atheists, ect in the US. the government may not favor one over another, period. the gov’t cannot just pick a religion as the “correct” one. coming to prayer in schools.

Who says “Congress” cannot favor one religion over another?
Congress has always recognized God, the God of Christianity in goverment and has always made the assumption that man’s laws cannot contradict God’s laws which forbid murder, theft, fraud, etc.

Who says all religions are the same? In the Muslim religion, if a person converts to Christianity, that person can and should be killed by another Muslim. It is done all the time in Muslim countries and there is no retribution by the Muslim goverments. The Muslim religion does not believe in freedom of religion. Thus, once Muslims get in control of the goverment they suppress other religions. By what logic can you say all religions are the same and one should not be favored over another?

Is the Hindu religion, in which the caste system makes some people superior to others, equal to Christianity which teaches the equal dignity of every human being?

All countries of the world favor one religion or another, whether it is secularism, atheism, the Muslim religion, Hinduism, etc.

Atheists have no standard of right and wrong, since they reject God and the Natural law that comes from 'God, . Thus, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, all atheists killed millions of their own people, and thought they were doing good, since they have no standards of right and wrong, Athiests don’t have to believe in the equal dignity of every human being. Should atheism be given equal status to Christianity that teaches the equal dignity of every human being? Who has made the determination that athiesm is equal in value to those who believe in the God who wrote the bible?

Since when is recognizing the God of the Judeo-Christian belief establishing a religion. Exactly what religion is being established, since Jews and Christians all belong to different religions?

 

[aaronjmagnan]

BioCatholic:

what you are describing is a THEOCRACY. the founders recognized that the people must have the free will to “pursue happiness”, even if it entailed turing away from God. you simply cannot force someone to accept God. again, for government to work, ALL persons must be represented and treated fairly, and ALL subject to laws that ensure “equal protection”. that means a person cannot be punished for turning away from God by the government, because that person may no longer believe in and accept that faith as true. therefore, they cannot be held accountable for violating such doctrine i.e. failing to attend mass, or blaspheming, or divorcing.

I am not advocating a Theocracy. I was just suggesting that I accept the reality of where I live. I think a religious politic is dangerous to the idea of free-will, but freedom has become a God here. Freedom has become the logos, and not Jesus, who Himself did not advocate a Theocracy.

God bless,
Aaron