Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes

[midcan5]

Foxfyre, please stop wasting bandwidth with that list, it proves only you can find things that supposedly support your erroneous position. To state once again, many fought to have God written into the founding papers, but after you have suffered religious persecution for thousands of years thats' a tough sell for thinking folks. It is very difficult for a modern person to go back in time to an age when the enlightenment began and freedom from religious tests were finally ending, but our founders accomplished that hard task.

Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

and

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

 

[mattskramer]

I don’t believe that we should follow “original intent” in interpreting and applying the Constitution. We have advanced as a people. We have outgrown the mentality of our founding fathers. There is such a thing as progress. While they did some good, to a large extent they were hypocrites and unethical. Some of the founders owned slaves. They saw no reason for allowing women to vote. They considered it to be okay to break treaties with the Indians.

 

[Gunny]

The flamefest that followed the previous post can be found in the Flame Zone forum. This portion of the thread has been returned by request of some who have expressed a desire to continue discussing the actual topic.

If any of y'all just want to call names, take it to the Flame Zone.

 

[midcan5]

If any of y'all just want to call names, take it to the Flame Zone.

Agreed.

Matt, good point, too often going back and reading the early history is picking what we agree with and ignoring the rest.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, please stop wasting bandwidth with that list, it proves only you can find things that supposedly support your erroneous position. To state once again, many fought to have God written into the founding papers, but after you have suffered religious persecution for thousands of years thats' a tough sell for thinking folks. It is very difficult for a modern person to go back in time to an age when the enlightenment began and freedom from religious tests were finally ending, but our founders accomplished that hard task.

Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

and

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

The Wall of Separation phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. It was a letter reassuring concerned Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government. It was not intended to express any concern that the government needed protection from the Baptists.

The second phrase you quoted is a statement that specifically supports the rationale behind the 2nd amendment.

The 'misue of bandwidth' of which you complained was to illustrate the misconception by anti-religionists that the founders wanted everybody to be secular. Rather than seeing themselves as secular, however, they supported a secular government that would impose no religious requirement or expectation of any kind upon the people, thus affording complete religious freedom to the people. This was in no way in conflict with their heartfelt conviction that the Republic would not even survive if the people did not uphold moral values embodied in and arising out of their religious faith.

I'm sorry that you think original intent is no longer meaningful. I think without a firm grounding in original intent, nobody can fully understand, much less emulate, the principles embodied in our Constitution.

 

[Shogun]

Rather than seeing themselves as secular, however, they supported a secular government that would impose no religious requirement or expectation of any kind upon the people, thus affording complete religious freedom to the people.


cough cough..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Rather than seeing themselves as secular, however, they supported a secular government that would impose no religious requirement or expectation of any kind upon the people, thus affording complete religious freedom to the people.


cough cough..

Yup, which does NOT mean you can not have religious meetings, material or services on , in or around Government property, buildings or meetings.

In fact you have been shown the very man you keep claiming said just that had religious services weekly IN the Congress as President.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rather than seeing themselves as secular, however, they supported a secular government that would impose no religious requirement or expectation of any kind upon the people, thus affording complete religious freedom to the people.


cough cough..

Cough cough indeed. There is a difference between a secular government and a secular environment. They put together a government that would have no power to require the people to adhere to any religious practice or belief--I've said that in various ways several times now--while fully expecting themselves to be as religious as they were moved to be. And for most of them, that was pretty darn religious.

Even you are probably smart enough to understand that, Shogun.

 

[Shogun]

Oh I understand something alright.


But, now that you've come to the point where you will admit that the FFs were big fans of a separation of state from church....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh I understand something alright.


But, now that you've come to the point where you will admit that the FFs were big fans of a separation of state from church....

No they were not, not in the manner you and your buddies mean. The restriction is JUST a restriction on the Federal Government ( and now after the 14th and 15th amendments the State Governments) designating a State Religion, or showing favoritism in any official capacity to any specific religion.

Again, Jefferson attended Religious Services IN the Congress every weekend while President.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I understand something alright.


But, now that you've come to the point where you will admit that the FFs were big fans of a separation of state from church....

Nope. They had no notion of separation of state from church at all. I refer you to yesterday's posts illustrating how they held church services in the halls of Congress and even in the Supreme Court chambers. They openly professed their faith and feared that without their religious values, the whole nation would collapse. They had no problem with restrictive state religions established in the colonies and many participated in these. They had no problem with religious icons and slogans, with religion liberally peppered throughout textbooks, and morning prayers in the classroom.

But they were not willing to have a "Church of England" in America. The federal government would not be given the power to dictate religious beliefs or to reward or punish anyone for the religious beliefs they held.

So a secular government was established based on largely Christian values for what were mostly Christian people. Not separation of church and state, but protection of religious faith from interference by the federal government.

 

[midcan5]

Once again to draw from one of the key FF his feelings about the separation.

James Madison father of the constitution wrote:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

 

[Shogun]

snap.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again to draw from one of the key FF his feelings about the separation.

James Madison father of the constitution wrote:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Yup, and this was the rationale for the First Amendment and the requirement for no religious test. America would never submit again to religious tyranny and this would be deeply imbedded into the Constitution. The Federal government would have no power to dictate matters of faith or belief to any person nor would it have any power to reward or punish anyone respective to religion.

Madison however also said the following:

“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)

• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

 

[midcan5]

Madison however also said the following:

“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

These two quotes struck me as they both point back to us to live up to the high standards they set. I think it was Russell who said, Christianity is a wonderful idea except that it has never been tried. Paraphrase.

 

[Foxfyre]

These two quotes struck me as they both point back to us to live up to the high standards they set. I think it was Russell who said, Christianity is a wonderful idea except that it has never been tried. Paraphrase.

Which is an interesting quote but irrelevent to the issue of the degree of religious expression demonstrated by our Founding Fathers. Of course none of the Founding Fathers saw themselves as anything other than sinners. But they pretty much shared the view that the Constitution would not work and the Republic would not stand if the people were not committed to a moral and virtuous society. And they believed that such morals and virtue came straight from God through the faith they brought with them to America.

They also believed God gave them unalienable rights including freedom, and ensured that by refusing to allow the government to be able to dictate what their religious faith must be.

 

[Shogun]

to a moral and virtuous society.


Deists everywhere Agree!

Thankfully, morals and virtues are not a monopoly owned by christianity..

After all... I'd hate to start quoting ratified treaties signed by a presidential founding father.

 

[midcan5]

Which is an interesting quote but irrelevent to the issue of the degree of religious expression demonstrated by our Founding Fathers.

Just thinking....

I would agree but this going back in history is harder than looking at the present and seeing how these ideas worked through time. Separation obviously has had a positive effect as we haven't had much religious conflict. Except for the Scopes Monkey trial most people accept modern science and the ideas it presents. With the new religious conservatism science is now being challenged. This has happened with the ascendancy of the religious right's fight over taxation on religious schools.

While this would be a debate in the religion section, the question then becomes what are the accomplishments of religion in comparison to the science of the secular world? If it really has been tried, what has it done.

I heard recently an argument that Jimmy Carter was the only Christian / moral president we have had. I thought that interesting for the obvious reasons.

 

[mattskramer]

Which is an interesting quote but irrelevent to the issue of the degree of religious expression demonstrated by our Founding Fathers. Of course none of the Founding Fathers saw themselves as anything other than sinners. But they pretty much shared the view that the Constitution would not work and the Republic would not stand if the people were not committed to a moral and virtuous society. And they believed that such morals and virtue came straight from God through the faith they brought with them to America.

They also believed God gave them unalienable rights including freedom, and ensured that by refusing to allow the government to be able to dictate what their religious faith must be.

They also believed that it was okay to take land from the Indians. They also believed that it was okay to own slaves. They also believed that it was okay to prohibit women from voting. What else did they happen to believe?

 

[Foxfyre]

They also believed that it was okay to take land from the Indians. They also believed that it was okay to own slaves. They also believed that it was okay to prohibit women from voting. What else did they happen to believe?

Everything you said which also reflected values some brought from the Old World. Remember that it was British slave ships that transported the slaves to the New World and it was mostly black Africans who captured the slaves in the African bush and jungles and delivered them to the slave traders.

I am guessing that most of the descendents of those black Africans and those slave traders no longer support a concept of slavery either.

There is no civilization on Earth that doesn't have a really seamy history when that history is judged by 21st Century morality. So the trick is to judge people within the morality of THEIR day, not our day. And we judge ourselves by the morality that has evolved out of our experience together over all the centuries of our history and heritage.