B
buffalo
Guest
Check out the signature - you will find it is signed in the year of the Lord.
Thomas Jefferson - President of the American Bible Asoc.? HMMMMMM!
- Status
Thomas Jefferson - President of the American Bible Asoc.? HMMMMMM!
S
Strength
Guest
Thanx for agreeing with me…this sums it up much better
On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association sent a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his “appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States.” The letter was received on December 30, 1801. The Danbury Baptist Association consisted of a 26-church alliance in western Connecticut. In a state where the established religion was Congregationalism, the Connecticut Baptists were a minority religion who supported Jefferson politically due to his ardent stance concerning religious liberty.
In their letter to Jefferson, the Baptists’ primary concern was whether “religious privileges” (the rights of conscience) were deemed as “inalienable rights” or merely as “favors granted” by the individual states and thus subject to withdrawal by civil authorities. In outlining their view of religious liberty, the Baptists described religion as a matter between God and individuals, and reasoned that no one should suffer civil consequences on account of personal religious opinions.
Although the Baptists did not request a religious proclamation, Jefferson viewed his response as an occasion to articulate why he declined to proclaim days of public fasting and thanksgiving as his predecessors had done, while also expressing his views on church and state. Prior to finalizing his response, Jefferson solicited political commentary and advice from Attorney General Levi Lincoln and Postmaster General Gideon Granger, his primary consultants on New England politics. Even though he felt the religious sentiment expressed in Jefferson’s response “of importance to be communicated,” Lincoln cautioned Jefferson to alter his comments associated with “proclamations” so that the states would not misconstrue Jefferson’s pronouncement as an implied censure on their ability to make proclamations.
In contrast, Granger suggested no changes to Jefferson’s draft, stating the president had expressed an opinion “felt by a majority of New England, and publicly acknowledged by near half the people of Connecticut.”
In his final version, Jefferson removed all reference to proclamations of fasting and thanksgiving. Instead, his response expressed the axiom that rights of conscience would be enjoyed by all citizens free from infringement by the federal government:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
As most students of church and state know, Jefferson was not the first individual to use the “wall” metaphor. A century and a half before Jefferson, colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams talked of a “hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” In 1766, Scotsman James Burgh proposed “building an impenetrable wall of separation between all things sacred and civil.”
In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the Supreme Court declared that Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”
In the Court’s 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”
It is interesting to note that in spite of all this “history,” Jefferson’s use of the wall metaphor in his 1802 New Year’s Day letter to the Danbury Baptists still generates so much contemporary debate.
Many religionists (including several modern-day Supreme Court Justices and the current Chief Justice) continue to minimize the effect of the Danbury letter, calling it a “quickly written courtesy of little consequence,” and claiming that separation of church and state is not a true constitutional principle. While it is accurate that the literal phrase “wall of separation” or “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, Leo Pfeffer, the late eminent church-state scholar, pointed out that “it was inevitable that some convenient term would come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people.” Another ploy of the religionists is to argue that Jefferson was concerned only with the rights of conscience in his pronouncement. This position can easily be refuted as Jefferson quoted the establishment clause in the exact sentence in which he expressed the “wall of separation,” thus indicating his concern for more than just the free exercise of religion.
On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association sent a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his “appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States.” The letter was received on December 30, 1801. The Danbury Baptist Association consisted of a 26-church alliance in western Connecticut. In a state where the established religion was Congregationalism, the Connecticut Baptists were a minority religion who supported Jefferson politically due to his ardent stance concerning religious liberty.
In their letter to Jefferson, the Baptists’ primary concern was whether “religious privileges” (the rights of conscience) were deemed as “inalienable rights” or merely as “favors granted” by the individual states and thus subject to withdrawal by civil authorities. In outlining their view of religious liberty, the Baptists described religion as a matter between God and individuals, and reasoned that no one should suffer civil consequences on account of personal religious opinions.
Although the Baptists did not request a religious proclamation, Jefferson viewed his response as an occasion to articulate why he declined to proclaim days of public fasting and thanksgiving as his predecessors had done, while also expressing his views on church and state. Prior to finalizing his response, Jefferson solicited political commentary and advice from Attorney General Levi Lincoln and Postmaster General Gideon Granger, his primary consultants on New England politics. Even though he felt the religious sentiment expressed in Jefferson’s response “of importance to be communicated,” Lincoln cautioned Jefferson to alter his comments associated with “proclamations” so that the states would not misconstrue Jefferson’s pronouncement as an implied censure on their ability to make proclamations.
In contrast, Granger suggested no changes to Jefferson’s draft, stating the president had expressed an opinion “felt by a majority of New England, and publicly acknowledged by near half the people of Connecticut.”
In his final version, Jefferson removed all reference to proclamations of fasting and thanksgiving. Instead, his response expressed the axiom that rights of conscience would be enjoyed by all citizens free from infringement by the federal government:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
As most students of church and state know, Jefferson was not the first individual to use the “wall” metaphor. A century and a half before Jefferson, colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams talked of a “hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” In 1766, Scotsman James Burgh proposed “building an impenetrable wall of separation between all things sacred and civil.”
In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the Supreme Court declared that Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”
In the Court’s 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”
It is interesting to note that in spite of all this “history,” Jefferson’s use of the wall metaphor in his 1802 New Year’s Day letter to the Danbury Baptists still generates so much contemporary debate.
Many religionists (including several modern-day Supreme Court Justices and the current Chief Justice) continue to minimize the effect of the Danbury letter, calling it a “quickly written courtesy of little consequence,” and claiming that separation of church and state is not a true constitutional principle. While it is accurate that the literal phrase “wall of separation” or “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, Leo Pfeffer, the late eminent church-state scholar, pointed out that “it was inevitable that some convenient term would come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people.” Another ploy of the religionists is to argue that Jefferson was concerned only with the rights of conscience in his pronouncement. This position can easily be refuted as Jefferson quoted the establishment clause in the exact sentence in which he expressed the “wall of separation,” thus indicating his concern for more than just the free exercise of religion.
T
theMutant
Guest
I believe that we are getting a bit off topic here.
However, your argument does more to support my position than yours. Jefferson said that it was not a matter for the government to impose a religious observance on the people. He did not, however, say that they should not take their religious views into consideration when voting or otherwise engaging with the government. Clearly the wall that separates church and state is a one-way wall; one that prohibits the state from imposing or prohibiting religion.
However, your argument does more to support my position than yours. Jefferson said that it was not a matter for the government to impose a religious observance on the people. He did not, however, say that they should not take their religious views into consideration when voting or otherwise engaging with the government. Clearly the wall that separates church and state is a one-way wall; one that prohibits the state from imposing or prohibiting religion.
T
theMutant
Guest
My last post regarding the First Amendment in this thread. If you are telling me that the Constitution forbids me from voting or behaving (even while holding a public office) according to my religiously formed conscience, then I am prohibited from freely exercising my religion which requires that I do so. I cannot pass a law imposing my religion on someone, but I can pass a law that is consistent with my religious beliefs. If you don’t think so, then there are an awful lot of laws we have to remove from the books (theft, murder, perjury, etc.)
J
JackmanUSC
Guest
Again you miss the point strength, he didn’t wan’t a specific form of Christianity to dominate, he did not want to abolish it alltogether from the aspects of public and governmental life. Plus, this was not a piece of legislation at all but a letter to settle a dispute.
B
buffalo
Guest
Correct. The wall is to prevent the govt from imposing a state religion on its people. It was not meant to immunize the public arena from religious influence for the good of man. Religion has been part of the public debate until this recent innovation.
Conversely, the wall was to immunize religion from the harmful effects of civil evils.
T
theMutant
Guest
Tantum ergo:
You are quite right about the point regarding Bibles however. Prior to the printing press it cost nearly the equivalent of two years earnings to obtain a Bible. This is why they were chained in the Churches – to prevent theft. Strength demonstrates a knowledge of the Middle Ages that reflect no further study than what is commonly presented in high school. Sorry but Martin Luther did not come up with the idea of translating the Bible into the local language for the populous. There were already 15 different translations into German when he was born. It is true that the average person in the Middle Ages only had a very basic understanding of religion (which is not the same as saying they were not religious). This is because they had to work all day long in order to maintain their livelihood and couldn’t take the time to become more educated.
The early Middle Ages saw the near elimination of slavery in Europe, the advancement of the role of women in society including the right to vote, and the decline of political and other forced marriages – all under the guidance of the Church. All of these things were undone in the late Middle Ages, the “Enlightenment,” and the “Renaissance” as people abandoned the ideas put forth by the Church and looked back to ancient Rome and Greece and the standard toward which societal development should strive. For further reading on the topic, I highly recommend a book titled, “Those Terrible Middle Ages.”
Actually, there was a long period of time when kings and emperors had a great amount of influence in who was chosen to be a bishop or a cardinal. It must also be remembered that it was not always the case that a cardinal had to be a member of the clergy for the purpose of a cardinal is to advise and assist the pope.
You are quite right about the point regarding Bibles however. Prior to the printing press it cost nearly the equivalent of two years earnings to obtain a Bible. This is why they were chained in the Churches – to prevent theft. Strength demonstrates a knowledge of the Middle Ages that reflect no further study than what is commonly presented in high school. Sorry but Martin Luther did not come up with the idea of translating the Bible into the local language for the populous. There were already 15 different translations into German when he was born. It is true that the average person in the Middle Ages only had a very basic understanding of religion (which is not the same as saying they were not religious). This is because they had to work all day long in order to maintain their livelihood and couldn’t take the time to become more educated.
The early Middle Ages saw the near elimination of slavery in Europe, the advancement of the role of women in society including the right to vote, and the decline of political and other forced marriages – all under the guidance of the Church. All of these things were undone in the late Middle Ages, the “Enlightenment,” and the “Renaissance” as people abandoned the ideas put forth by the Church and looked back to ancient Rome and Greece and the standard toward which societal development should strive. For further reading on the topic, I highly recommend a book titled, “Those Terrible Middle Ages.”
S
Seeks_God
Guest
Just one more point about Jefferson, The Danbury Letter, The Current Supreme Court. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t our Constitutions specifically state who can pass legislation? I can’t see how the Current Supreme Court can “downplay” legislation that a President considered.
S
Strength
Guest
I’m not sure why anyone is confused…Jeffersons letter clearly states that he supported a WALL…a separation between church and state. Period. There are many other letters and quotes from the FabFathers that illustrate this. I bet you guys would look at it differently if the union wasn’t mostly western christian…How about if we start allowing some Islamic influences? Don’t satanists have their own 10 commandments?..Do you care if we remove the christian ten commandments and put up some satanic ****?? IS that ok??
I’m not saying that they weren’t deists…I’m not saying that they meant for people to cast out religious beliefs…BUT THEY CLEARLY meant for public policy to be hashed out in an objective and pragmatic analysis…without religious control and guidance…I’m not sure how this can be disputed.
I’m not saying that they weren’t deists…I’m not saying that they meant for people to cast out religious beliefs…BUT THEY CLEARLY meant for public policy to be hashed out in an objective and pragmatic analysis…without religious control and guidance…I’m not sure how this can be disputed.
B
buffalo
Guest
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
A simple refutation to this would be our coinage which states unequivocally, “In God We Trust”. Also, opening prayers by Christian clergy in legislative sessions. There’s your proof. I’m by no means a conservative, however, this is irrefutable scientific, empirical knowledge that we can all measure.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
A simple, scientific, measurable and irrefutable body of evidence - get a coin from your pocket or a bill from your wallet. You’ll find the statement, “In God We Trust”. The government has absolutely declared dependence on God for our nation. I’m no conservative, but these are proofs even you can validate. How can you square up your statement about religious control and guidance and then look at your dollar bill and square them up? You can’t.
Peace…
S
Strength
Guest
This is my last post regarding the founding fathers…if this doesn’t do it for you then nothing will.
theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
this article saves me a lot of time explaining
theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
this article saves me a lot of time explaining
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah. The idea of putting “In God We Trust” should have never gotten to first base.
In God We Trust
The history books tell us that the founders of this country were heavily influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment. True enough. But the history books neglect an influence that proved even more important—religious principles. Michael Novak explains.
S
Seeks_God
Guest
No they did not, they wanted to insure that government didn’t infringe on religion. It was a one-way wall. How can you possibly exclude religion from any process that allows for free opinion? Muslims, jews, christians, satanists, aethiests, agnostics all are welcome to vote - and it’s because there are no goverment control over their beliefs. Which I understand is your point, but at the same time, this does not exclude the remote possiblity
rolleyes that God, one Truth, exists.
S
Seeks_God
Guest
Are YOU trying to save us???
T
theMutant
Guest
I’m sorry but the “strength” of your supporting article is very weak. Why should I bother to listen to people who present the following:
Two points that should cause people to pause and seriously consider the objectivity of the article writer(s) are items 1 and 2.
1: Jesus did not “come from God.” the Early Church quite clearly taught that Jesus IS God.
2: Who is intended by the pronoun, “you?”
Now, in all honesty, the Early Christians did summarize the Christian message. These summaries are known as the Creeds (from the Latin credo, “I believe.”) There are several points which were present in all of the creeds but which are strikingly absent from the list provided. Come on, Strength, how do you expect us to take seriously points presented regarding the thoughts of the founders of the United States when they can’t even accurately present what the Early Church taught despite the abundance of documentation available to them?
S
Seeks_God
Guest
I’m going to stop conversing. At first, I thought Strength was being honest and wanted to discuss the possibility of God’s existance, but now I see he has an agenda. And that agenda includes disproving God.
He brings up issues that have been debated for years and avoids facts (i.e. since the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state then they couldn’t want religion to enter public thought
)
He wants us to think that there should be a separation of Church and state although our founding fathers wanted us to recognize that we have “rights endowed by a creator”
He brings up other issues that have been debated for centuries (i.e. religion) and wants us simple minded ( ) people to prove God’s existance to him.
He truly believes that moral “absolutes” can be changed by society because society has always done it…well, now we know that it is okay to be a pedophillic, murdering, sellfish, egoist because I can vote for the right to do these things.
so, this leaves me with no resolution but hope to GOD that people with no respect for a creator never gain control…
He brings up issues that have been debated for years and avoids facts (i.e. since the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state then they couldn’t want religion to enter public thought
)He wants us to think that there should be a separation of Church and state although our founding fathers wanted us to recognize that we have “rights endowed by a creator”
He brings up other issues that have been debated for centuries (i.e. religion) and wants us simple minded (
) people to prove God’s existance to him.He truly believes that moral “absolutes” can be changed by society because society has always done it…well, now we know that it is okay to be a pedophillic, murdering, sellfish, egoist because I can vote for the right to do these things.
so, this leaves me with no resolution but hope to GOD that people with no respect for a creator never gain control…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Absolutely. If the powers that be in government (people in charge) had such a disgust for religion, then why in the world would they be so obvious and calculated as to show their trust in a higher power on something we all touch - currency. It’s a spiritual value placed on something of monetary value. That’s pretty significant I think.
I’m not a proponent of government instituted religion, but godly men have no other option but to bring their religious values and convictions into everything they do. It’s a natural phenomenon. If they did not bring their religious convictions into their work, we would have the ungodly form of government called COMMUNISM. Surely our friend strength wouldn’t want that, would he?!?!?!
Peace…
T
theMutant
Guest
While I don’t necessarily agree with all of your conclusions regarding Strength’s intentions in #57, SG, I have to agree that Strength has shown no interest in actually discussing the issues he is himself raising. As has been pointed out by several other posters:
He has flip-flopped between objective and subjective argumentation (and always assumed that his own view was the objective one ).
He has ignored the direct answers that have been given to his original questions regarding the relevance of religion in society and what religion has to offer that non-religion can not.
He has repeatedly put forth “intelligence” and things like “peer review” as the means by which non-religious society can establish moral norms but completely failed to address the fact that these “norms” are subject to change at the whim of the majority or, as the non-religious communist countries and other socialist regimes have illustrated, the ruling class.
Not only have the examples he has brought up in support of his position failed to offer such support, they often demonstrated the beneficial aspects of religion in society.
In conclusion, I am greatful for this topic because it has done much to reinforce my faith and my conviction of the fundamental importance of religion.
He has flip-flopped between objective and subjective argumentation (and always assumed that his own view was the objective one
).He has ignored the direct answers that have been given to his original questions regarding the relevance of religion in society and what religion has to offer that non-religion can not.
He has repeatedly put forth “intelligence” and things like “peer review” as the means by which non-religious society can establish moral norms but completely failed to address the fact that these “norms” are subject to change at the whim of the majority or, as the non-religious communist countries and other socialist regimes have illustrated, the ruling class.
Not only have the examples he has brought up in support of his position failed to offer such support, they often demonstrated the beneficial aspects of religion in society.
In conclusion, I am greatful for this topic because it has done much to reinforce my faith and my conviction of the fundamental importance of religion.
- Status