The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on August 07, 2011, 01:38:40 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-perry-offers-prayer-america-rally-185522036.html (http://news.yahoo.com/republican-perry-offers-prayer-america-rally-185522036.html)
I grabbed and posted this without fully digesting it, because yahoo moves so fast I may not find it in five minutes.
I intend to fully go through this tonight when I have time, but on first blush I see a slant from yahoo and those they value of total contempt for the Christian Faith. Sadly, this slant is not only from one or two media outlets, but our society as a whole has been moving deeper and deeper into a secular structure since the 1960's. I recall my years of public education and years of personal study since of how deeply entrenched the Judeo Christian Faith in the formation and structuring of this great nation.
Feel free to proceed here without me, because I will not be back to comment until I get a chance to fully view and read tonight.
-
The boy has big hairy balls of hardened steel to combine politics and religion. Whether its true faith, or more likely a ploy. I'll give him credit for whipping them out on the table for the chopping!
Overconfident politicians... Just seems like we've got our fill already :-\.
-
Separation of Church and State doesn't exist in the US Constitution.
Regardless of what people think that terminology only exists in Jeffersons writings. The 1st Amendment doesn't use those words nor should they be confused to mean anything but what they say...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-
Separation of Church and State doesn't exist in the US Constitution.
Regardless of what people think that terminology only exists in Jeffersons writings. The 1st Amendment doesn't use those words nor should they be confused to mean anything but what they say...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So then would you say that passing a law making a version of The Pledge Of Allegiance that contained religious the references the legal version violates the 1st Amendment? Or does the 1A literally mean that the government can make any laws favoring a religion in any way as long as they don't specifically make it the countries official religion?
For instance, the posting of Sharia Law in courthouse or other public places would be acceptable?
-
Imposing Sharia law violates the 1A.
Acknowledging that the nation is based on Judeo-Christian faith by putting "In God we trust" on our money, or a Nativity scene on the town square does not.
That is just one more manifestation of the killjoy atheist conspiracy to undermine the things that made us what we were as laid out by the Frankfurt school theorists after WWI.
-
Personally, I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is a problem, nor do I think that "In God we Trust" is a problem on US currency or the President ending his State of the Union address with "God Bless the United States of America!
The 1st says the the Congress shall pass no law or prohibit the free exercise of a particular religion. I DO NOT think that the 1st Amendment says that religion cannot exist in Government. We are a nation that is founded on the belief in a power higher than ourselves.
Separation arguments have existed for more than a hundred fifty years. Justice Black in 1947 was wrong in his assertion that it was the foundation of the 1st Amendment and it's meaning.
-
The only way to keep religious beliefs out of political arguments is by electing immoral c*cks#ckers to office.
We seem to have perfected that.
Exhibit A
I rest my case ;D
-
I was getting at the posting of the 10 Commandments in a court house.
But I agree that a politicians expression of his personal religious beliefs is not a problem...as long as he does not bias his judgment against those of other faiths.
I tend to believe you should elect folks based upon their character rather than how well they will bend to the whims of the voters, do they follow what they believe in or do they follow the changing winds of opinion.
However, to me, putting the 10 Commandments in any court of law, other than one convened by groups that follow that belief, is not to be allowed.
"In God We Trust" as a motto on currency is such a small issue, it in no way infringes on the rights or imposes adverse consequences on anyone. You can earn and spend the money without any active support of that motto.
However, "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance or spoken prayer in public schools both require a non-believer to avoid completely taking the Pledge as official sanctioned or to avoid joining in the school prayer, an act that will put them apart from believers, a state that can lead to problems for the non-believer.
-
The words in the pledge indicate THE NATION was founded under God which is a simple historical fact. It has nothing to do with the person reciting the pledge.
If they have a problem with it, they could always leave.
-
Are Supreme Court justices sworn in with a Bible? The President? Senators and Congresspersons? Are not the appointed judges across the country sworn in with a Bible? Governors?
The 10 Commandments and Sharia Law don't belong in the same conversation as far as I'm concerned.
-
Are Supreme Court justices sworn in with a Bible? The President? Senators and Congresspersons? Are not the appointed judges across the country sworn in with a Bible? Governors?
The 10 Commandments and Sharia Law don't belong in the same conversation as far as I'm concerned.
I believe you can choose your book to be sworn in upon, or none if none apply.
And I agree that I much prefer the 10 Commandments over Sharia law, but neither belong in a court of law.
-
The words in the pledge indicate THE NATION was founded under God which is a simple historical fact. It has nothing to do with the person reciting the pledge.
If they have a problem with it, they could always leave.
I'd think that was what the words were intended to imply if it were not for the circumstances under which they were added to the Pledge....as an anti-communism reaction (not that I favor communism at all)
Here is a statement from a link on the history of the pledge
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
The link is here http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
While I have no idea of motives or beliefs of the author, I tend to believe that making it a public prayer WAS the intent when the phrase was added.
-
I was getting at the posting of the 10 Commandments in a court house.
But I agree that a politicians expression of his personal religious beliefs is not a problem...as long as he does not bias his judgment against those of other faiths.
I tend to believe you should elect folks based upon their character rather than how well they will bend to the whims of the voters, do they follow what they believe in or do they follow the changing winds of opinion.
However, to me, putting the 10 Commandments in any court of law, other than one convened by groups that follow that belief, is not to be allowed.
"In God We Trust" as a motto on currency is such a small issue, it in no way infringes on the rights or imposes adverse consequences on anyone. You can earn and spend the money without any active support of that motto.
However, "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance or spoken prayer in public schools both require a non-believer to avoid completely taking the Pledge as official sanctioned or to avoid joining in the school prayer, an act that will put them apart from believers, a state that can lead to problems for the non-believer.
Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.
In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.
-
Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.
In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.
If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). ::). As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13
-
If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). ::). As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13
Bullsh!t. You know FQ, if you twist facts to insinuate an untruth you are still lying.
While it is true that different sects tried to f*ck each other every chance they got, and they all hated the Catholics, it does not change the fact that pretty much all of the founding Fathers were strong believers in some Christian faith.
Not one camel humper in the bunch.
I will point out that while I do not consider myself a Christian, my thinking is that it is the dominant philosophy of the people who built this nation, so either deal with it or leave.
-
Rember Solus, we are a nation that was founded by men that held Bible studies at the beginning of their sessions, they posted the Ten Commandments, they based their initial laws on Judeo Christian tennents, and prayer was a part of major decissions during sessions.
In less than a century we have taken a single sentance out of a letter to a foreign leader totally out of context and warped our First Amendment t mean freedom from.
If you wish to post a list of the 10 Commandments to use as a reference for this conversation, please do so. I have found several versions but am only used to the one taught by Catholics.
My point is that some of the Commandments have no business being held up in a court of law or made laws themselves.
For instance, the 4th Commandment as taught by the Catholic Church pertains to "Honor thy father and mother"
While I will not disagree that this is not as it should be, I can't come close to believing it has any business being dealt with in a court of law or arrests being made for kids who disobey their parents in front of witnesses who report the voilation.
Further, the Catholic Commandments have two that refer to "covet". One for thy neighbor's goods and one for thy neighbor's wife. The definition of Covet is yearn to posses. The whole thing is something you are thinking. Again, I don't want any court or law directed at what folks are allowed to be thinking.
There are more to the list.
-
I believe you can choose your book to be sworn in upon, or none if none apply.
And I agree that I much prefer the 10 Commandments over Sharia law, but neither belong in a court of law.
And yet, much of our foundational law comes from the 10 Commandments. Where else do the prohibitions of murder, stealing, adultery etc. come from?
Without those, the law is debased to a personal view of right and wrong. And to avoid Godwin's Law, I will note that Mao probably thought he was doing a pretty good thing by killing 10s of millions of his fellow Chinese (as well as the Chinese ethnics he thought no one would miss). Stalin too. With out a foundation that everyone can point to and say "That's why we have this the law", then it is fair game on everyone and everything - and there is no law except what those in power say is the law, which is what we are seeing in DC these days.
-
Bullsh!t. You know FQ, if you twist facts to insinuate an untruth you are still lying.
While it is true that different sects tried to f*ck each other every chance they got, and they all hated the Catholics, it does not change the fact that pretty much all of the founding Fathers were strong believers in some Christian faith.
Not one camel humper in the bunch.
I will point out that while I do not consider myself a Christian, my thinking is that it is the dominant philosophy of the people who built this nation, so either deal with it or leave.
Who said anything about muslims? And as far as beliving in the Bible, well yeah, but thats means bugger all in terms of unity if their interpretations were so different they were persecuting one another over the matter. The fact is they were mostly Christian with a few deists and agnostics, no question, but the unifying principles were federalism and republicanism as much or more than faith, because on those two principles they could agree.
FQ13
-
That's why Franklin called for a prayer before the final debate, so they would have something different to fight over ?
They were so much in agreement over Federalism and Republicanism that they debated the Constitution word by word for weeks ?
-
If by "a single sentence written to a foreign leader" you mean Jefferson's "high wall of separation between Church and state", it wasn't written to a foreign leader. It was written to persecuted Christians right here at home. Baptists in Connecticut were being persecuted by Congregationalists (a historical detail the Southern Baptist convention tends to overlook these days). ::). As far as folks being sworn in on Bible, remember the Constitution gives the option of affirmation for those who refuse to take an oath. Lets also remember that both John Q. Adams and Franklin Pierce took the oath on books of law, not Bibles. There is a lot of conservative evangelical historical revisionism going on about how Christian this country was, and a lot more about ignoring how the Christians were often at each other's throats to the point of seriously persecuting each other. The religious right's picture of a sunny conservative Christian solidarity coming under attack by godless liberals starting in the 1960s is a load of hooey.
FQ13
So, when George Washington declared a National Day of Prayer for the day after his inauguration, that was what, just a figment of our historical imaginations?
No one is arguing against the notion that there were different flavors of Christians, rationalists, "Liberals" (as you often lecture us), atheists and even - gasp! - Jews at the formation of this country. However, to deny the religious - and that means overwhelmingly some flavor of Christian - foundations of this country is an exercise in foolishness. You can spin the facts, quote any obscure tome or letter, but the overwhelming truth is that these men were religious to one degree or another, basing their religious nature in their Judeo-Christian education. Not wiccan, not mooslim, not buddhist, none of the above.
Go look up "Cynic" in Bierce's Devil's Dictionary - your picture is right there next to the definition! You have all of the facts, none of the wisdom.
-
Bullsh!t. You know FQ, if you twist facts to insinuate an untruth you are still lying.
While it is true that different sects tried to f*ck each other every chance they got, and they all hated the Catholics, it does not change the fact that pretty much all of the founding Fathers were strong believers in some Christian faith.
Not one camel humper in the bunch.
I will point out that while I do not consider myself a Christian, my thinking is that it is the dominant philosophy of the people who built this nation, so either deal with it or leave.
According to Tom Lehrer, everyone hates the Jews! Catholics are second-string hatees. ;D
Money quote at 1:10-1:20
-
The point of my post isn't to downplay the role of Christianity. It is however, to simply point out that we have never had religious unity given the seriouness of sectarianism, nor have we ever had political unity within Christianity. This why we have the 1A. The nation has never been as religiously homogenous in the ways that the religious right would like us to believe it once was. There was way to much division within Christianity over doctrine and politics. The civic religion (patriotism, the flag, revering the Constitution, supporting the uniform etc.) has played as important or a more important role as a unifier. And that Path, is the truth. We were founded by Christians, but we are held toghther by a whole lot more than religious unity. That is my point.
FQ13
-
The point of my post isn't to downplay the role of Christianity. It is however, to simply point out that we have never had religious unity given the seriouness of sectarianism, nor have we ever had political unity within Christianity. This why we have the 1A. The nation has never been as religiously homogenous in the ways that the religious right would like us to believe it once was. There was way to much division within Christianity over doctrine and politics. The civic religion (patriotism, the flag, revering the Constitution, supporting the uniform etc.) has played as important or a more important role as a unifier. And that Path, is the truth. We were founded by Christians, but we are held toghther by a whole lot more than religious unity. That is my point.
FQ13
Gee whillickers!! You mean, there are some Christians who haven't figured out we have done a marvelous job at building our own little version of the Tower of Babel? Wow, who'd-a-thunk it!!!! I mean, we only have like 50 different English translations of the Bible!!! And we all know how well the first Tower turned out . . . . ::)
[/sarcasm]
You need to find better ways of arguing your point, as your approach leads to the whole anti-religion, anti-Christian memes.
-
According to Tom Lehrer, everyone hates the Jews! Catholics are second-string hatees. ;D
Money quote at 1:10-1:20
LOL ;D
Funny thing, those reactionary racist Confederates had the 1st Indian General, Stand Watie, and the 1st (Only ? ) Jewish vice President, Judah P. Benjamin, who had been serving as Confederate Sec. of the Treasury.
Apparently they were only prejudiced against the blacks they dealt with every day.
-
I was going to wait until I did my research before responding to FQ, but since Mr. Bogan has entered the fight I will update, and he may have my info. I lost my bookmarks in the last virus cleansing, so I need to redo my research. However, my recollection is that the letter from Jefferson was to a foreign Ambassador. I have thoughts, but need to dig deeper.
-
I was going to wait until I did my research before responding to FQ, but since Mr. Bogan has entered the fight I will update, and he may have my info. I lost my bookmarks in the last virus cleansing, so I need to redo my research. However, my recollection is that the letter from Jefferson was to a foreign Ambassador. I have thoughts, but need to dig deeper.
here is the Wikipedia entry for Separation of Church and State.
Who knows how accurate it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
-
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ten-commandments-other-displays-mottos
Brief history
As the first settlers of this country migrated from Europe, so too did European customs like religious persecution and taxation to support a government church. Life in Colonial America preceding and during the American Revolution was filled with struggles to secure political and personal rights, including religious freedom, which the colonists sought to achieve by “disestablishing” the Anglican Church, as Chester Antieau, Arthur Downey, and Edward Roberts have described. Accordingly, the Constitution’s framers attempted to separate religion from government in the First Amendment. In the years following the adoption of the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, courts and legal scholars have articulated many disparate interpretations of the establishment clause.
Before 1947, the establishment clause applied exclusively to the federal government. By and large this meant the Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction only over challenges of federal aid to religion, as Jeffrey W. Stiltner has noted. Early cases generally dealing with the establishment-clause principles include Terrett v. Taylor (an 1815 case concerning lands acquired by the Episcopal Church prior to the Revolutionary War), and Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844; regarding the founding of a Philadelphia college that banned any “ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect” from working at or visiting the college). (See also Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Davis v. Beason (1890), both of which considered the establishment clause in the context of a free-exercise claim regarding federal laws prohibiting bigamy).
More at link
-
Here is the leter in its entirety M58. It was written to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut.
FQ13
PS it is worth noting that at his death Jefferson did not consider the Declaration, but rather the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was the model for the 1A as his greatest achievment.
Letter to the Danbury Baptists
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
-
In direct answer to the OP,
1) Public executions are gone,....
2) Tar & Feathering is gone,....
3) Challenging someone to a duel is gone,.....
4) Barackolypse Now has run a deliberate rampant campaign of ruination to this country.
5) We can't utilize items 1-3, to deal with item #4.
I could make it a longer list,....
-
And yet, much of our foundational law comes from the 10 Commandments. Where else do the prohibitions of murder, stealing, adultery etc. come from?
Without those, the law is debased to a personal view of right and wrong. And to avoid Godwin's Law, I will note that Mao probably thought he was doing a pretty good thing by killing 10s of millions of his fellow Chinese (as well as the Chinese ethnics he thought no one would miss). Stalin too. With out a foundation that everyone can point to and say "That's why we have this the law", then it is fair game on everyone and everything - and there is no law except what those in power say is the law, which is what we are seeing in DC these days.
Path, prohibitions against murder and stealing are widespread is any religion. They will all have exceptions to varying degrees, but they will be present if nothing else to protect the lives and property of the "clergy".
Any functional society has had those prohibitions far before Christianity was established and far outside the realm of the 10 Commandments.
I don't believe Adultery is against the law in the US any longer, as should be the case. It is a moral issue rather than a legal issue.
-
Here is the leter in its entirety M58. It was written to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut.
FQ13
PS it is worth noting that at his death Jefferson did not consider the Declaration, but rather the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was the model for the 1A as his greatest achievment.
Letter to the Danbury Baptists
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
It sems FQ is, as usual, wrong.
http://wallbuilders.com/?utm_source=WallBuilders+Mailings&utm_campaign=a5850e22c0-The_Response3&utm_medium=email
An Historic Event
Office of the Governor*
This past Saturday, over 32,000 from across the nation gathered at Reliant Stadium in Houston at the request of Texas Governor Rick Perry for a day of fasting, repentance, and prayer for America. Protestors ringed the outside of the event, which is a potent commentary on the condition of the culture today that so many object to Americans voluntary gathering for prayer.
Media coverage prior to the event was largely negative, with many articles happily providing critics a free platform from which to spew their hate. Particularly preposterous were the historical arguments leveled against the event.
For example, in the Houston Chronicle, so-called “First Amendment scholar” David Furlow claimed that “the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have been fans of Gov. Rick Perry’s official involvement with a Christian day of prayer.” [1] To prove his point, he asserted:
“Thomas Jefferson famously coined the phrase ‘wall of separation between Church & State’ when describing the First Amendment to Baptists who asked if the president would dare ‘govern the Kingdom of Christ’.”
First, Jefferson did not coin the phrase. It was introduced in the 1500s by leading clergy in England who objected to the government taking control over religious doctrines and punishing religious activities and expressions. In America, many famous early ministers also used the phrase – all well over a century before Jefferson did.
Second, nowhere in the letter from the Baptists to Jefferson or in his reply to them was it ever questioned whether “the president would dare ‘govern the Kingdom of Christ’.” To the contrary, the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson’s ardent supporters during the presidential election, consoled him by telling him that the vicious attacks against him by his political enemies in New England had been because he had properly and vigorously refused to “assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.” Jefferson’s reply letter simply reassured the Baptists that the government would definitely not prohibit, inhibit, limit, or regulate religious expressions – exactly the opposite of what Furlow claimed.
Third, on multiple occasions, Jefferson called his state to Christian prayer and worship. In 1774, he called for a day of fasting and prayer, [2] which included that all the legislators “proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church” to hear prayers and a sermon. [3] He also urged his home community around Charlottesville to arrange a special day of fasting, prayer, and worship. [4]
In 1779, Jefferson again called his state to prayer, asking the people to give thanks for “the glorious light of the Gospel, whereby through the merits of our gracious Redeemer we may become the heirs of His eternal glory.” [5] He further asked Virginians to pray that . . .
He would . . . pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers on the Gospel – that He would bless and prosper the means of education and spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth. [6]
Rick Perry did nothing more than what Thomas Jefferson did – a fact that Furlow ignores. Furlow further claims:
“The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli . . . said ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion’."
Furlow has lifted 19 words out of an 83 word sentence, thus making it say exactly the opposite of what it actually does say.
That 1797 treaty was one of several that America negotiated with Muslim nations during America’s first War on Islamic Terror (1784-1816), [7] in which five Muslim countries were indiscriminately attacking the property and interests of what they called the “Christian” nations, including America. But America sought to ensure the Muslims that we were not like the ancient European Christian nations – that did not hate Muslims because of their religious faith. Thus, the full sentence in that treaty states:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] . . . [8]
That is, we were not one of the Christian nations that held an inherent hostility toward Muslims. (See our full article on the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and America’s first War on Terror.) Furthermore, in 1805 under Jefferson, that treaty was renegotiated and the clause stating that “. . . the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .” was deleted. [9]
Finally, Furlow complained that “the day of prayer [was] announced on the state website and the official invitation printed on Perry’s gubernatorial stationery.” But by 1815, some 1,400 official calls to prayer had already been issued by government leaders, [10] each printed and distributed at government expense – the Founders’ equivalent of using the “state website” and “gubernatorial stationery.”
In conclusion, despite what critics claim, history is clear that Rick Perry did exactly what the Founding Fathers themselves had done – on hundreds of occasions.
*Picture of Governor Perry is courtesy of the Office of the Governor. Permission to reproduce from this website for noncommercial purposes is freely granted. This permission statement must be included in any noncommercial reproduction.
[1] Kate Shellnutt, “Lawyer: Perry’s plans raise First Amendment, church-state issues,” The Houston Chronicle, July 27, 2011 (at: http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2011/07/lawyer-perrys-plans-raise-first-amendment-church-state-issues/).
[2] Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. II, p. 42, “Notice of Fast to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Saint Anne,” June 1774.
[3] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 105-106, “Resolution of the House of Burgesses Designating a Day of Fasting and Prayer,” May 24, 1774.
[4] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), Vol. 1, p. 116, to the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Anne before July 23, 1774.
[5] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 3, p. 178, “Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer,” November 11, 1779.
[6] Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P.Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 3, p. 178, “Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer,” November 11, 1779.
[7] See, for example, the 1787 treaty with Morocco; the 1795, 1815, and 1816 treaties with Algiers; the 1796 and 1805 treaties with Tripoli; and the 1797 treaty with Tunis. The American Diplomatic Code, Embracing A Collection of Treaties and Conventions Between the United States and Foreign Powers from 1778 to 1834, Jonathan Elliot, editor (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970; originally printed 1834), Vol. I, pp. 473-514.
[8] Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.
[9] The American Diplomatic Code, Embracing a Collection of Treaties and Conventions Between the United States and Foreign Powers: From 1778 to 1834. With an Abstract of Important Judicial Decisions, On Points Connected with Our Foreign Relations, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1834), Vol. I, p. 499, Art. 11, “Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,” November 4, 1796, signed January 4, 1797.
[10] Deloss Love, The Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company 1895), pp. 464-514, “Fast and Thanksgiving Days Calendar.”
-
Path, prohibitions against murder and stealing are widespread is any religion. They will all have exceptions to varying degrees, but they will be present if nothing else to protect the lives and property of the "clergy".
Any functional society has had those prohibitions far before Christianity was established and far outside the realm of the 10 Commandments.
Not true. Greeks and Romans had prohibitions against murder of specific classes of people only. A Roman man could kill anyone in his family without repercussions. The Roman edict of being an enemy of the People and Senate meant that people were supposed to murder you if they found you.
Most early religions were based on human sacrifice. Baal worship and the Mayan, Aztec and Incan (to a lesser degree) religions all were predicated on murder to placate and mollify the gods. The Egyptians seem to be a notable exception to ritual religion-based murders from the 1st Dynasty onwards. Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians where the gummint and religion were truly indistinguishable were notoriously violent against their own people as well as those captured in conquests.
What is different about Judaism and later Christianity is that these 2 religions codified prohibitions against murder starting more than 3000 years ago. They are distinctive precisely because they went against all prevailing religious "wisdom" of that time.
And do we even need to address the advocation of infidel murder in the Koran? Islam spread precisely through the application of violence and murder.
Buddhism is another non-violent religion of sorts, although its main tenant is that this world sucks, deal with it.
I don't believe Adultery is against the law in the US any longer, as should be the case. It is a moral issue rather than a legal issue.
Neither is sodomy illegal anymore. That is now, however, we were talking about what was going through the Founding Fathers' heads 250 years ago, not what is true now. Being rational men, they would understand what the breakdown of religiously-based prohibitions would mean to this country.
-
Morality is what makes "Society" possible by setting limits on what is or is not acceptable behavior.
My neighbor plays his music to loud, to late. Why should I not beat his head in with a bat ? He also has a nice stereo, why shouldn't I take it ?
It's the law? So what ? They aren't going to stop me any more than they stop me from doing 70 on a highway marked 55.
They may punish me if they catch me, but over 50% of murders go unsolved, and since it's my first offense I may just get probation. That's not much of a deterrent.
So what real deterrent is there to keep me from caving in his skull or taking his stuff because I want it ?
In Liberal Dem dominated Urban black areas , nothing. That's why the crime rate is so high.
In the rest of the country order is primarily maintained by a religion based sense of what is inherently "right" or "wrong".
-
It sems FQ is, as usual, wrong.
Tom, I brought the board the full text, word for word, of an historical document written in 1802 that said exactly what I said it did. This makes me wrong how? ???
FQ13
-
Tom, I brought the board the full text, word for word, of an historical document written in 1802 that said exactly what I said it did. This makes me wrong how? ???
FQ13
Your interpretation of that letter is flawed , failing, as it does to take into account contemporary and prior usage of the phrase.
-
FQ,
I have not had time to dig in to find the letter I have in mind, but even if you take the one you posted it does not justify what has happened to Judeo Christian beliefs in our nation. Many have used this phrase to remove certain people and reasoning from the governmental process and public life. Many have used this phrase to rewrite the First Amendment from free expression of, to freedom from.
The flaw used in interpreting this statement from the letter and the flaw that the Court put into case law was that they did not match Mr. Jefferson's actions in his public life to this short comment.
-
Your interpretation of that letter is flawed , failing, as it does to take into account contemporary and prior usage of the phrase.
Umm, I think the author of the passage you cited might be a bit flawed. You gently admonished me, correctly, not to cite works that only peripherally, rather than directly made my point. The same is true here. This guy assumes Jefferson was a Christian. He wasn't. He was a Deist (cf "The Jefferson Bible"). TJ respected religion, but he sure as hell wasn't someone who thought that Christianity governed this nation as he made it clear, contrary to the revisionist author you quote, that a man's faith is between him and God alone. This fool is trying to A) Establish that Jefferson says we are a Christian nation because he called for some ceremonial days of prayer. B) Tie the wars against the Barbary Pirates (a commercial issue) into a war between Christianity and Islam with a direct link to 911 ::).
C) Assert that to question our core "Christian character is to be Un American, because the secularists are at odds with the founding ideals. This is straight out of the Pat Robertson playbook. McCain called Robertson "an Agent of intolerance". He was right.
Read the letter I posted again. It puts paid to this "idjit", as you say.
FQ13
-
I'll take you to task on the Barbary Pirate/9-11 issue since that is my stronger subject, I'll let M58 and others tear you up on the Freedom of, not freedom from issue.
These are not 2 separate issues, there is a continual historic thread of Koranic anti Western violence that flows through history. The Barbary Pirates, the death of Charles Gordan, and 9-11 are not 3 unrelated affairs.
They are way points in a continual war against Western civilization that started before Al Tarak ever looked across the straights of Hercules and tried to figure how to get an Army across to the big honking rock that today bares his name
Jebel Al Tar, in (appropriately ) English, Gibraltar.
The current war with Jihadi's began with the invasions of Spain and Byzantium by desert barbarians, it progressed though the siege of Vienna and the Mahdi uprising in Sudan, they have often been stymied as with the fall of the Ottoman empire, but they always recover and take up where they left off, Kind of like the Germans of the 20th century, they are either at your throat or at your knees, they invented the concept of terrorism as diplomacy .
History shows that even if we destroyed the Taliban, which the West lacks the ruthlessness to do, the same menace would reappear some where else under a different name within a few years.
Oh hell I'll comment on the religious part too.
You are misrepresenting the beliefs of Jefferson and the other founders when you label them as "Deists" in a manner that is, in essence, lying. Most were followers of fairly standard Protestant sects of the day, even conceding that Jefferson was a "Deist" over looks the fact that he was a CHRISTIAN "Deist" . and ignores the fact that the reason he called for , far from merely ceremonial, day' of prayer, was because he, and his contemporaries strongly believed in the strength of Prayer. They had FAITH in Gods intervention.
The revisionist propaganda is what you are spewing in your ignorance. Path is right that you are a tool.
You are a tool of the socialist elitist conspiracy that has been working to under mine our culture.
Undermining religious faith, the opiate of the masses, was a specific item on the agenda of that "Frankfurt School" that I keep telling you about that you apparently lack the courage to research for yourself.
Instead you just continue to pooh pooh the idea and remain fat, dumb, and oblivious.
-
But oddly enough Tom, of the two of us, I'm the Christian, and who came to God at 25. I'd call myself born again except that the right has made that a political rather than theological term >:( You will find me in church most Sundays and attending evening prayer during the week. I love Christ and I love the faith. I just have issues with those who think its a political party. This might make me more ornery than a secularist, as I do take it personally when some tool like Robertson or Dobson says "Christians have always believed X...." and yet I and lots of other Christians believe Y and these douche bags don't even acknowledge us, they just presumes to speak for God. ::) >:( It does make one a bit pissy because the secularists think I agree with the christian jihadi',s and the fundamentalists say those like me aren't "real" Christians because we disagree with their theology. Yes, I get testy, but I think its justified . Its hard to present a third POV when you are trying to intervene in a debate between two paranoid fanatics who take any sign of disagreement as disloyalty and basically say "You are with me or against me", Well, I'm some one who is is with you part of the way, but I think you're full of crap on the rest of it and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut about it. Where does that leave me? Honestly, I don't care because I think I'm right and I'll argue my case.
FQ13
FQ13
-
Professing Christians out number practicing Christians by a depressingly huge margin .
I posted somewhere else, the only way you can take a persons religious faith out of his political beliefs is to elect immoral c*cks*ckers, a method we seem to have perfected.
-
Professing Christians out number practicing Christians by a depressingly huge margin .
I posted somewhere else, the only way you can take a persons religious faith out of his political beliefs is to elect immoral c*cks*ckers, a method we seem to have perfected.
Dead right. My first priest, the one who confirmed me made just that point. She said "Look, you want to know how many serious Christians there are in this congregation? Its easy. Forget the people who show up on Christmas Eve, Christmas morning and Easter. Count the folks who show up on Pentecost, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday". Sad, but true.
FQ13