Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Sallow]

The problem with Liberals and their "Seperation of Church and State" falacy is they conveniently ignore "...the free exercise thereof."

Is someone keeping you from getting to church on Sunday?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, if my brother is teaching class in a state-supported classroom, you wads do not get to witness to the classroom. You get to pray anytime as long as you do not (1) disrupt educational process or (2) infringe on others' rights to not hear your nonsense.

Grow up, kids.

 

[FuelRod]

The problem with Liberals and their "Seperation of Church and State" falacy is they conveniently ignore "...the free exercise thereof."

Is someone keeping you from getting to church on Sunday?

Keep that Religious speech behind those closed doors, boy.

 

[CryingKoala]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.

Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[8] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

Guess you missed this the first time I posted. Go to the source which is the Library of Congress and read the abundant documents that makes it clear that the "separation of Church and State" was not meant to keep religion out of government. I mean seriously if that was Jefferson's intent then why would he allow Church services to be held in executive branch buildings?

Sometimes you idiots have to use some common sense. If that is at all possible.

And the Madison quote you bolded in is basically what i said earlier, separation of church and state is to keep government out of our religious affairs, not to keep religion out of government.

Read more about Jefferson and Madison and how they used government buildings for church services and then tell me they wanted this so-call wall of separation.


Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall (The Old House of Representatives) from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Abijah Bigelow, a Federalist congressman from Massachusetts, describes President James Madison at a church service in the House on December 27, 1812, as well as an incident that had occurred when Jefferson was in attendance some years earlier.

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814. The new building, seen here on the lower right, was built on approximately the same location as the earlier one, within view of the White House.

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Sources and authentic letters.

This is exactly the kind of lousy ahistorical view which shows how dishonest your argument can be.

None of what you quoted is put in context of:
-the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time. Religious diversity meant something different back then.
-It never meant total divorce of religious expression from the government. Only that it had to be as inclusive as possible. Back then, your examples would have been inclusive in nature. Nowadays it would not.

Plus you blithely ignore the influence of William Penn and Roger Williams on the Establishment Clause. Separation of Church and state began as a concept in the mid 1600's.

 

[Immanuel]

No, if my brother is teaching class in a state-supported classroom, you wads do not get to witness to the classroom. You get to pray anytime as long as you do not (1) disrupt educational process or (2) infringe on others' rights to not hear your nonsense.

Grow up, kids.

#2 is bullshit.

It is the same as telling someone they have the right to free speech as long as they go somewhere where no one can hear them.

We have the right to free speech. You have the right to ignore us, but you don't have the right to make us go somewhere where you cannot hear us. You don't like what we say, then you leave.

Immie

 

[del]

Who cares,the dominating religion was Christianity and it still is. Are Christians stopping anyone from worshipping the way they want ?

No. They just shame, belittle, mock, and ridicule anybody who openly does so, and announces said people are going to hell, and they are happy to believe it.

And even if I say not ALL of them - it is a LOT.

And what would that lot ever do if it got to the point where christianity is not the 'main' religion?

They also might want to be aware that this country may be primarily christian? But we're not primarily pentecostal, holy rolling, fringe people. And many, many people of faith are pro-choice and GLBT-friendly.

The threads intent is to show the level of deceit we have in this country. There is no separation of church and state in our constitution
It also I might add as far as those who "ridicule" are far more civil than those who be head those who dis-agree

you may want to head back to those ESL classes, laddie

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.



Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

Guess you missed this the first time I posted. Go to the source which is the Library of Congress and read the abundant documents that makes it clear that the "separation of Church and State" was not meant to keep religion out of government. I mean seriously if that was Jefferson's intent then why would he allow Church services to be held in executive branch buildings?

Sometimes you idiots have to use some common sense. If that is at all possible.

And the Madison quote you bolded in is basically what i said earlier, separation of church and state is to keep government out of our religious affairs, not to keep religion out of government.

Read more about Jefferson and Madison and how they used government buildings for church services and then tell me they wanted this so-call wall of separation.


Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall (The Old House of Representatives) from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Abijah Bigelow, a Federalist congressman from Massachusetts, describes President James Madison at a church service in the House on December 27, 1812, as well as an incident that had occurred when Jefferson was in attendance some years earlier.

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814. The new building, seen here on the lower right, was built on approximately the same location as the earlier one, within view of the White House.

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Sources and authentic letters.

This is exactly the kind of lousy ahistorical view which shows how dishonest your argument can be.

None of what you quoted is put in context of:
-the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time. Religious diversity meant something different back then.
-It never meant total divorce of religious expression from the government. Only that it had to be as inclusive as possible. Back then, your examples would have been inclusive in nature. Nowadays it would not.

Plus you blithely ignore the influence of William Penn and Roger Williams on the Establishment Clause. Separation of Church and state began as a concept in the mid 1600's.

Tell it to SCOTUS.

 

[CryingKoala]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.

Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany.[8] They included nonconformists like the Puritans, as well as Catholics. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, so dissenting churches would have a significant edge.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Wallace v. Jaffree

You still are trafficking in the same lies over and over again. Separation of Church and State as a concept predates the United States and was an integral part of the religious and political beliefs of parts of the country you want to ignore.

Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As a Separatist he had concluded that the Church of England was irredeemably corrupt and that one must completely separate from it to establish a new church for the true and pure worship of God. His search for the true church eventually carried him out of Congregationalism, the Baptists, and any visible church. From 1639 forward, he waited for Christ to send a new apostle to reestablish the church, and he saw himself as a "witness" to Christianity until that time came. He believed that soul liberty freedom of conscience, was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom demanded that church and state be separated. Williams was the first to use the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state. He called for a high wall of separation between the "Garden of Christ" and the "Wilderness of the World." This idea might have been one of the foundations of the religion clauses in the U.S. Constitution, (although the language used by the founders is quite different) and First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are right, separation of Church and State is not found in the constitution. It is, however, Jefferson's description of the intent of the establishment clause. Most people who trot out this argument don't understand the historic context of this concept.



Consider the case of the Danbury Baptist Association, to whom Thomas Jefferson directed the letter which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." At the time when Jefferson penned that phrase, every person in the state of Connecticut was required to pay MANDATORY church taxes to the Congregational religious hierarchy, and this status quo (in Connecticut) wasn't overturned until 1818.

In other words, when the constitution was drafted, there were still established churches in multiple states in the U.S. Those churches taxed residents, provided services, and people of dissenting faiths could not opt out of their control of these things.

Our nation's stance on these issues has evolved gradually over time, based upon the writings of the founding fathers, particularly jefferson and madison, and based upon the development of state constitutions and case law.

Religious folks should beware about inviting government to sit in the pew with them. That's a match designed to cause some degree of discomfort to both.

I think Madison said it best when he wrote: "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."

Guess you missed this the first time I posted. Go to the source which is the Library of Congress and read the abundant documents that makes it clear that the "separation of Church and State" was not meant to keep religion out of government. I mean seriously if that was Jefferson's intent then why would he allow Church services to be held in executive branch buildings?

Sometimes you idiots have to use some common sense. If that is at all possible.

And the Madison quote you bolded in is basically what i said earlier, separation of church and state is to keep government out of our religious affairs, not to keep religion out of government.

Read more about Jefferson and Madison and how they used government buildings for church services and then tell me they wanted this so-call wall of separation.


Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall (The Old House of Representatives) from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Abijah Bigelow, a Federalist congressman from Massachusetts, describes President James Madison at a church service in the House on December 27, 1812, as well as an incident that had occurred when Jefferson was in attendance some years earlier.

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814. The new building, seen here on the lower right, was built on approximately the same location as the earlier one, within view of the White House.

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Sources and authentic letters.

This is exactly the kind of lousy ahistorical view which shows how dishonest your argument can be.

None of what you quoted is put in context of:
-the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time. Religious diversity meant something different back then.
-It never meant total divorce of religious expression from the government. Only that it had to be as inclusive as possible. Back then, your examples would have been inclusive in nature. Nowadays it would not.

Plus you blithely ignore the influence of William Penn and Roger Williams on the Establishment Clause. Separation of Church and state began as a concept in the mid 1600's.

Go to the Library of Congress and research this for yourself. I mean that is if you want to know the truth.

 

[Sallow]

Is someone keeping you from getting to church on Sunday?

Keep that Religious speech behind those closed doors, boy.

Well I am kinda tired of seeing religious nuts on the streets and in the Subways.

And I really don't know why they are tolerated. If someone started yelling shit about the price of tea in china..they'd be hauled off for disturbing the peace.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Separation of church and state defines American culture and thinking. James Madison pointed it out best that churches who were forced to compete without government support or protection would have to serve the interests of their members. What a thought: religious free market competition.

 

[CryingKoala]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

They have taken the meaning of Separation of Church and State to represent ecumenialism (inclusive reference to religion).

As I keep repeating to blank stares. As long as the government expression of religion includes references to all faiths and is not sectarian or exclusionary, it will be considered OK by SCOTUS [see Lynch v. Donnelly]

Lately they have been gunshy over the subject. Looking for excuses not to make decisions on it.

 

[del]

Guess you missed this the first time I posted. Go to the source which is the Library of Congress and read the abundant documents that makes it clear that the "separation of Church and State" was not meant to keep religion out of government. I mean seriously if that was Jefferson's intent then why would he allow Church services to be held in executive branch buildings?

Sometimes you idiots have to use some common sense. If that is at all possible.

And the Madison quote you bolded in is basically what i said earlier, separation of church and state is to keep government out of our religious affairs, not to keep religion out of government.

Read more about Jefferson and Madison and how they used government buildings for church services and then tell me they wanted this so-call wall of separation.


Jefferson attended church services in the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall (The Old House of Representatives) from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

Abijah Bigelow, a Federalist congressman from Massachusetts, describes President James Madison at a church service in the House on December 27, 1812, as well as an incident that had occurred when Jefferson was in attendance some years earlier.

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814. The new building, seen here on the lower right, was built on approximately the same location as the earlier one, within view of the White House.

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Sources and authentic letters.

This is exactly the kind of lousy ahistorical view which shows how dishonest your argument can be.

None of what you quoted is put in context of:
-the nation was overwhelmingly Protestant at the time. Religious diversity meant something different back then.
-It never meant total divorce of religious expression from the government. Only that it had to be as inclusive as possible. Back then, your examples would have been inclusive in nature. Nowadays it would not.

Plus you blithely ignore the influence of William Penn and Roger Williams on the Establishment Clause. Separation of Church and state began as a concept in the mid 1600's.

Go to the Library of Congress and research this for yourself. I mean that is if you want to know the truth.

like you did, right?



that thing in your hands is your ass.

say thank you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

They have taken the meaning of Separation of Church and State to represent ecumenialism (inclusive reference to religion).

As I keep repeating to blank stares. As long as the government expression of religion includes references to all faiths and is not sectarian or exclusionary, it will be considered OK by SCOTUS [see Lynch v. Donnelly]

Lately they have been gunshy over the subject. Looking for excuses not to make decisions on it.

No one is crying about civil expression of religion, Koala. Go read more carefully.

 

[CryingKoala]

Go to the Library of Congress and research this for yourself. I mean that is if you want to know the truth.

You are not the first person to try the argument. Its been done before. Its still stupid.

Even by your own quotes you are missing the picture by avoiding any kind of historical context to those acts. What was considered inclusive back then would not pass muster today.

 

[CryingKoala]

Tell it to SCOTUS.

They have taken the meaning of Separation of Church and State to represent ecumenialism (inclusive reference to religion).

As I keep repeating to blank stares. As long as the government expression of religion includes references to all faiths and is not sectarian or exclusionary, it will be considered OK by SCOTUS [see Lynch v. Donnelly]

Lately they have been gunshy over the subject. Looking for excuses not to make decisions on it.

No one is crying about civil expression of religion, Koala. Go read more carefully.

Except for the people who are arguing against Separation of Church and State. They are using civil expression of religion as their examples. Not realizing that it is not the divorcement from all religion which typifies the separation but just the avoidance of sectarianism.

SCOTUS still doesn't want to touch the subject with a 10' pole.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Uncredited???
Did you miss this: "Covered more fully in Kidd's "God of Liberty," chapter two."

Bullshit, you pulled a cut and paste job and are too cowardly to give us the link.


3. I still await your apology for suggesting that I was in any way less than honest. Note that I refrained from applying that appellation to you, and have simply documented how wrong you are.

Don't hold your breath. Your real source is still questionable. My guess is something related to David Barton and Wallbuilders. It has all the hallmarks of his bad scholarship, cherry picked and falsified historical quotes and ahistorical views of 18th Century America.

The Founders and the Constitution establish clearly that Americans have the right to practice religion as they see fit, and it was the Progressives-Liberals who injected the anti-religon pose. Folks like Roscoe Pound and Hugo Black were responsible, and have manipulated uneducated folks like yourself.

Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause.


Secularists like yourself decry every public display of religion.

Again you fail to read my responses and go with a phony argument.

What part of "as the government embraces all faiths and does not exclude others or engage in blatant sectarian acts, religious expression is OK" is an attack on public display of religion? None of it. Try again.


The Constitution, in plain language, supports the practice of religion, endorses same and it is the "attack" by the Left that requires a defense.

Only when it is inclusive and non-sectarian in nature. Something you want to avoid discussing at all costs because it doesn't fit in with your canned argument and lazy assumptions.

Our founding documents require a neutral, not hostile, view of religion at the very least.
Too bad you fail to see that.

That neutrality can only be kept by keeping the apparatus of religion out of government. Anything less than that makes any hope of free exercise of religion a total farce.

Man you have more patience for her then I..Kunga Din.

1. This was in the original post, jerk, any can go back to page 3 or 4 and find it. Except you, obviously.
What I provided was my notes from reading the book.

"...too cowardly to give us the link."
Ah, outrage from you because you didn't read carefullly...
...I'm surprised that you read at all.


2. "Don't hold your breath. Your real source is still questionable..."
I won't expect it because you are a cur: both ignorant, and poorly brought up.

And I gave you an excellent source a post or two later when you suggested that I used "David Barton and Wallbuilders." Heritage. Go back and read it...than you'll have another item not to apologize for.
Let me make you feel at home, I’ll speak to you in the language you are most familiar with: sit-stay-roll over.

3. "It has all the hallmarks of his bad scholarship.."

How the heck would a dolt like you know anything about scholarship???

4. "Which is still dishonest tripe considering the concept of separation of church and state both predated the founding of the country and was explicated in Jefferson's take on the Establishment Clause."

Link?

Since almost every colony established or supported a particular church, your contention is nonsense on the face of it.

5."That neutrality can only be kept by keeping the apparatus of religion out of government."
Opinion to which you are entitled.
But there is no indication that the Founders believed same.
Rather, they saw the wall as one way: government out of religion, not the reverse.

6. "... your canned argument and lazy assumptions."
Yet, I'm the one providing documentation and links...and you, simply vituperation. That makes clear as to whom rectitude belongs.
Being as weak as you are, the ease with which liberalism could mesmerize, and constrict any nascent insight, was within the blink of an eye.


BTW, for the Toad...not much of a Kipling reader, eh?
It's "Gunga Din," not "Kunga Din."

But I got a chuckle out of that display of ignorance.

 

[Immanuel]

They have taken the meaning of Separation of Church and State to represent ecumenialism (inclusive reference to religion).

As I keep repeating to blank stares. As long as the government expression of religion includes references to all faiths and is not sectarian or exclusionary, it will be considered OK by SCOTUS [see Lynch v. Donnelly]

Lately they have been gunshy over the subject. Looking for excuses not to make decisions on it.

No one is crying about civil expression of religion, Koala. Go read more carefully.

Except for the people who are arguing against Separation of Church and State. They are using civil expression of religion as their examples. Not realizing that it is not the divorcement from all religion which typifies the separation but just the avoidance of sectarianism.

SCOTUS still doesn't want to touch the subject with a 10' pole.

Well, actually many liberals do give the impression that they want the complete divorcement of all religion from public life. That does not by any means mean all or even most, but there are some liberals that appear to want religion completely eliminated from life outside of a closet.

Immie

 

[del]

~massive pc self tongue bath edited~

But I got a chuckle out of that display of ignorance.

now you know why we love to have you here.

laughter's the best medicine, and you're like a morphine pump with a bottomless reservoir.

kudos

 

[Sallow]

BTW, for the Toad...not much of a Kipling reader, eh?
It's "Gunga Din," not "Kunga Din."

But I got a chuckle out of that display of ignorance.

Naw..saw the movie!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxaP59mFrXk&feature=related]Charge of the Light Brigade (1936) - YouTube[/ame]