Some facts about "Church and State" and why the ACLU and liberals are wrong.

[Liberty]

Just more right wingers trying to push a supernatural and mystical agenda. I wonder, who in their right mind falls for such nonsense, then I read posts here and think, "Oh, nevermind".

just 26 years ago Congressional Democrats drafted a bill stating 1983 as the year of the Bible. Were democrats right wingers in 1983?

 

[paperview]

I jsut showed you the truth

And I agreed with you and James Madison on that specific case for reasons I outlined earlier in the thread. If you were literate you might be able to read it. With that said, that did not end the discussion because it did not address the main point of the thread which is why for example Fisher Ames who worded the first amendment said bibles should be used to teach children to read, and why Jefferson put Bible Studies into the DC public schools during his presidency and no one minded. Do you care to address any of these points or are you just going to keep on spewing stupid?

Lot's of David Barton crapola I see there. I am short with time right now, but the claim of Jefferson being responsible for putting the Bibles in DC schools is the same tripe spread by the King Tripe revisionist, David Barton

Read here: Jefferson wanted Bible in school?

<snip>

Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in which:

• ...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language.

As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point).

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an answer to that question.

In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the school board for retirement in Virginia.

Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his use of evidence.
Either alternative should cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship.

And the crap about " ALL State Constitutions in the preamble or somewhere within thank God at some point for our civil liberties and freedom, a REQUIREMENT for statehood signed into law by George Washington" is just that as well: Crap. On a stick/

 

[Truthmatters]

No government money to private schools.


Pay for them if you dont want to send your kids to the public one

 

[Seawytch]

How about we stop with the ridiculous premise that bibles are "banned" in Public Schools. Any teacher or child can bring their bibles to school with them and can read them on their own time.

You can even TEACH religion in public schools as long as you are not advancing a particular belief over another.

 

[Truthmatters]

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman


"Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."


The father of our constitution says its in the constitution

its in the constitution.

why does the right keep trying to say its not?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

If I am blind it's only because people like you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

I like how you completely ignored the post I made. 1. How is having schools preach one religion's scriptures over another's not endorsing one religion?

2. Do you think a Jewish kid should be forced to attend a public school, then be forced to listen to teachings about a book they don't believe in?

3. Would you support other religion's teachings to be taught in school-or just from the Bible?

Sorry I must have missed it. I'll set your questions up by number.

1. I don't know, I am not trying to push my personal view on this topic I am simply trying to gain an understanding in what the founders intention was. And from all my reading of primary documents and quotes, letters, diaries, and whatnot it seems that using the Bible to teach kids how to read for example was perfectly fine.

2. It seems to me that back at the country's founding you could be any religion you want but it was encouraged that you be Christian. There was discrimination that cannot be denied, however which is unfortunate.

3. Personally? I don't think teaching through the Bible is a good idea. But like I said this is not about my beliefs, I want to know what is true about history and I am sick of secondary crap being jammed down my throat as fact. I want to hear the words from the mouth of someone who was there, in authority, and had a part to play. That is how I study history. I could give two shits about what some guy on a bench says 170 years later when it comes to understanding a specific time in history.

I get your points, but not totally sure where Christianity specifically comes in to play. It's "God" that's usually mentioned-not "Jesus", and I think that's a big distinction. Especially when the idea of many of them being Deists exists. Look at a few Ben Franklin quotes:


"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being...I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous."

"I wish it were more productive of good Works, than I have generally seen it: I mean real good Works, Works of Kindness, Charity, Mercy, and Publick Spirit; not Holiday-keeping, Sermon-Reading or Hearing; performing Church Ceremonies, or making long Prayers, filled with Flatteries and Compliments, despis’d even by wise Men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. "

Franklin is pretty much saying that religion should focus on "real good works", and not "sermon-reading, or head", which I would personally say that learning about the Bible in schools falls into this category.

 

[Liberty]

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman


"Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."


The father of our constitution says its in the constitution

its in the constitution.

why does the right keep trying to say its not?

Were Democratic congressmen in 1983 right wingers?

 

[paperview]

Just more right wingers trying to push a supernatural and mystical agenda. I wonder, who in their right mind falls for such nonsense, then I read posts here and think, "Oh, nevermind".

just 26 years ago Congressional Democrats drafted a bill stating 1983 as the year of the Bible. Were democrats right wingers in 1983?

That's bullshit too. The RESOLUTION was a feelgood measure no smart politician would vote against and was drafted for Reagans kissy-face play to the National Prayer breakfast community and the fundy thumps.

It was Introduced in the Senate by William Armstrong - A REPUBLICAN.

Bill Summary & Status - 97th Congress (1981 - 1982) - S.J.RES.165 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The majority party in the Senate was REPUBLICAN.

 

[Liberty]

Just more right wingers trying to push a supernatural and mystical agenda. I wonder, who in their right mind falls for such nonsense, then I read posts here and think, "Oh, nevermind".

just 26 years ago Congressional Democrats drafted a bill stating 1983 as the year of the Bible. Were democrats right wingers in 1983?

That's bullshit too. The RESOLUTION was a feelgood measure no smart politician would vote against and was drafted for Reagans kissy-face play to the National Prayer breakfast community and the fundy thumps.

It was Introduced in the Senate by William Armstrong - A REPUBLICAN.

Bill Summary & Status - 97th Congress (1981 - 1982) - S.J.RES.165 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The majority party in the Senate was REPUBLICAN.

Alright maybe I was a little off but the democrats still voted for it.

 

[Liberty]

I like how you completely ignored the post I made. 1. How is having schools preach one religion's scriptures over another's not endorsing one religion?

2. Do you think a Jewish kid should be forced to attend a public school, then be forced to listen to teachings about a book they don't believe in?

3. Would you support other religion's teachings to be taught in school-or just from the Bible?

Sorry I must have missed it. I'll set your questions up by number.

1. I don't know, I am not trying to push my personal view on this topic I am simply trying to gain an understanding in what the founders intention was. And from all my reading of primary documents and quotes, letters, diaries, and whatnot it seems that using the Bible to teach kids how to read for example was perfectly fine.

2. It seems to me that back at the country's founding you could be any religion you want but it was encouraged that you be Christian. There was discrimination that cannot be denied, however which is unfortunate.

3. Personally? I don't think teaching through the Bible is a good idea. But like I said this is not about my beliefs, I want to know what is true about history and I am sick of secondary crap being jammed down my throat as fact. I want to hear the words from the mouth of someone who was there, in authority, and had a part to play. That is how I study history. I could give two shits about what some guy on a bench says 170 years later when it comes to understanding a specific time in history.

I get your points, but not totally sure where Christianity specifically comes in to play. It's "God" that's usually mentioned-not "Jesus", and I think that's a big distinction. Especially when the idea of many of them being Deists exists. Look at a few Ben Franklin quotes:


"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being...I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous."

"I wish it were more productive of good Works, than I have generally seen it: I mean real good Works, Works of Kindness, Charity, Mercy, and Publick Spirit; not Holiday-keeping, Sermon-Reading or Hearing; performing Church Ceremonies, or making long Prayers, filled with Flatteries and Compliments, despis’d even by wise Men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. "

Franklin is pretty much saying that religion should focus on "real good works", and not "sermon-reading, or head", which I would personally say that learning about the Bible in schools falls into this category.

yeah and personally I would agree with Franklin. Some of the state constitutions such as virginia specifically mention christianity though which is interesting.

 

[paperview]

just 26 years ago Congressional Democrats drafted a bill stating 1983 as the year of the Bible. Were democrats right wingers in 1983?

That's bullshit too. The RESOLUTION was a feelgood measure no smart politician would vote against and was drafted for Reagans kissy-face play to the National Prayer breakfast community and the fundy thumps.

It was Introduced in the Senate by William Armstrong - A REPUBLICAN.

Bill Summary & Status - 97th Congress (1981 - 1982) - S.J.RES.165 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The majority party in the Senate was REPUBLICAN.

Alright maybe I was a little off but the democrats still voted for it.

The Congressman that introduced it in the HofR was Moorhead - a REPUBLICAN as well.

And yes, the democrats voted for it. Like it's not political suicide to vote against a feelgood resolution on the Bible. lol.
Might as well write a measure against mom, hot dogs and apple pie - then watch the stupid campaign commercials fly.

It was a dogwhistle resolution and in the end, totally meaningless.

 

[paperview]

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman


"Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."


The father of our constitution says its in the constitution

its in the constitution.

why does the right keep trying to say its not?

Were Democratic congressmen in 1983 right wingers?

Some were. You never heard of conservative democrats?

Before the CRA of 64 and the party shift, they pretty much dominated the previous 140 years or so.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Sorry I must have missed it. I'll set your questions up by number.

1. I don't know, I am not trying to push my personal view on this topic I am simply trying to gain an understanding in what the founders intention was. And from all my reading of primary documents and quotes, letters, diaries, and whatnot it seems that using the Bible to teach kids how to read for example was perfectly fine.

2. It seems to me that back at the country's founding you could be any religion you want but it was encouraged that you be Christian. There was discrimination that cannot be denied, however which is unfortunate.

3. Personally? I don't think teaching through the Bible is a good idea. But like I said this is not about my beliefs, I want to know what is true about history and I am sick of secondary crap being jammed down my throat as fact. I want to hear the words from the mouth of someone who was there, in authority, and had a part to play. That is how I study history. I could give two shits about what some guy on a bench says 170 years later when it comes to understanding a specific time in history.

I get your points, but not totally sure where Christianity specifically comes in to play. It's "God" that's usually mentioned-not "Jesus", and I think that's a big distinction. Especially when the idea of many of them being Deists exists. Look at a few Ben Franklin quotes:


"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being...I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous."

"I wish it were more productive of good Works, than I have generally seen it: I mean real good Works, Works of Kindness, Charity, Mercy, and Publick Spirit; not Holiday-keeping, Sermon-Reading or Hearing; performing Church Ceremonies, or making long Prayers, filled with Flatteries and Compliments, despis’d even by wise Men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. "

Franklin is pretty much saying that religion should focus on "real good works", and not "sermon-reading, or head", which I would personally say that learning about the Bible in schools falls into this category.

yeah and personally I would agree with Franklin. Some of the state constitutions such as virginia specifically mention christianity though which is interesting.

That is interesting, did not know that.

 

[Liberty]

That's bullshit too. The RESOLUTION was a feelgood measure no smart politician would vote against and was drafted for Reagans kissy-face play to the National Prayer breakfast community and the fundy thumps.

It was Introduced in the Senate by William Armstrong - A REPUBLICAN.

Bill Summary & Status - 97th Congress (1981 - 1982) - S.J.RES.165 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The majority party in the Senate was REPUBLICAN.

Alright maybe I was a little off but the democrats still voted for it.

The Congressman that introduced it in the HofR was Moorhead - a REPUBLICAN as well.

And yes, the democrats voted for it. Like it's not political suicide to vote against a feelgood resolution on the Bible. lol.
Might as well write a measure against mom, hot dogs and apple pie - then watch the stupid campaign commercials fly.

It was a dogwhistle resolution and in the end, totally meaningless.

so if the same situation occurred this year do you think the democrats would vote for it?

 

[Liberty]

I get your points, but not totally sure where Christianity specifically comes in to play. It's "God" that's usually mentioned-not "Jesus", and I think that's a big distinction. Especially when the idea of many of them being Deists exists. Look at a few Ben Franklin quotes:


"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being...I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous."

"I wish it were more productive of good Works, than I have generally seen it: I mean real good Works, Works of Kindness, Charity, Mercy, and Publick Spirit; not Holiday-keeping, Sermon-Reading or Hearing; performing Church Ceremonies, or making long Prayers, filled with Flatteries and Compliments, despis&#8217;d even by wise Men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. "

Franklin is pretty much saying that religion should focus on "real good works", and not "sermon-reading, or head", which I would personally say that learning about the Bible in schools falls into this category.

yeah and personally I would agree with Franklin. Some of the state constitutions such as virginia specifically mention christianity though which is interesting.

That is interesting, did not know that.

It's way at the bottom in Section 16 but in short:

"Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. "

Basically, practice any religion you want but we as a State will practice Christian morals mutually.

 

[paperview]

Alright maybe I was a little off but the democrats still voted for it.

The Congressman that introduced it in the HofR was Moorhead - a REPUBLICAN as well.

And yes, the democrats voted for it. Like it's not political suicide to vote against a feelgood resolution on the Bible. lol.
Might as well write a measure against mom, hot dogs and apple pie - then watch the stupid campaign commercials fly.

It was a dogwhistle resolution and in the end, totally meaningless.

so if the same situation occurred this year do you think the democrats would vote for it?

That's a good question.

 

[Liberty]

The Congressman that introduced it in the HofR was Moorhead - a REPUBLICAN as well.

And yes, the democrats voted for it. Like it's not political suicide to vote against a feelgood resolution on the Bible. lol.
Might as well write a measure against mom, hot dogs and apple pie - then watch the stupid campaign commercials fly.

It was a dogwhistle resolution and in the end, totally meaningless.

so if the same situation occurred this year do you think the democrats would vote for it?

That's a good question.

I don't. it seems a lot has changed in just one generation.

 

[Ernie S.]

Okay...so let's institute Sharia Law...



Seriously though...what exactly are you advocating for?

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? I am AGAINST the establishment of religion by law that is the whole point...but that is NOT what the ACLU and liberals are for. They are for DESTROYING anything resembling religion in ALL public capacities and bastardizing and "interpreting" the constitution in a manner that will achieve these ends which is NOT, by words of the very people who WROTE these phrases, clauses, and documents, how it was intended.

Libs and the ACLU conveniently forget this phrase:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. The US Constitution when dated includes the phrase: "In the year of our Lord"
2. The US Constitution does not say anything against prohibiting religion in politics anywhere.
3. Thomas Jefferson WHILE serving as President was the Super Intendent of the DC Schools and included Bible reading in the cirriculum(The same man that wrote the letter that first used the phrase "Church and State")
4. ALL State Constitutions in the preamble or somewhere within thank God at some point for our civil liberties and freedom, a REQUIREMENT for statehood signed into law by George Washington.
5. In 1983 the Senate DEMOCRATS passed a bill recognizing the year as the year of the Bible. Reagan signed it.

There's more examples but there's a few. The first amendment only prohibits the CREATION of a STATE RELIGION via a law.

You forgot to cite the source of this information and its supporting case law. Otherwise it’s subjective, irrelevant opinion.

Over the decades the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the writings and statements of Jefferson, Washington, as well as state constitutions and Foundation Era primary documents when determining Establishment Clause issues:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.’

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

The majority in the Everson case…agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

McCollum v. Board of Education of School District No. 71 (1948)

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lynch, supra, at 678; see also Allegheny County, supra, at 591 quoting Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.

[T]he Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs…The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

When the Supreme Court makes an interpretive ruling with regard to the Constitution, that ruling becomes part of Constitutional case law, and in that context part of the Constitution.

Consequently neither ‘liberals’ nor the ACLU are ‘wrong,’ indeed, neither made the determination as to the original intent of separation of church and State, it was the Supreme Court that made that determination. In order for your OP premise to be valid, therefore, you’ll need to cite a Supreme Court ruling that overturns the above noted cases, or otherwise clearly states it was the Framers’ original intent to conjoin church and State.

***

As an aside, it’s strange as to why conservatives continue to deny this fundamental fact with regard to the original intent of the Framers as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as conservatives present themselves as advocates of government restriction. Where else but the private matter of religion is government restriction in greater need?

Yet here we see conservatives advocating just that, that church and State be conjoined when the Court has clearly spelled out why such a position is un-Constitutional and the historic perils of such a position.

Some of it may have to do with the bane of social conservatism, the incorrect notion that by conjoining church and State the many social ills they perceive might be addressed. There may be political motivation in an effort of the right to appease Christian fundamentalists and their all-important vote. And some of it may be predicated on ignorance of the Free Exercise Clause, where some incorrectly perceive the prohibition of a given religious group’s expression of their faith’s dogma in the public sector as some sort of ‘violation’ of their right to express those beliefs.

It’s quite likely a combination of all of the above items, but whatever the motive it’s settled law that it was the Framers’ original intent to separate church and State and that doctrine is codified in the Constitution accordingly.

 

[Liberty]

CCJ read the whole thread before taking it off topic. We are talking about primary sources and facts. It's not opinion, open up the constitution or find a digital copy, hit your find text butotn, put it in, and bam.

Or you could perhaps start by answering some of the direct questions posed throughout the thread, and then maybe explain why you believe secondary interpretation has more credit than direct citations from those involved with the topic of discussion personally.