| | “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.” There can be no misinterpretation, miss-understanding, no nothing. Our RINO Conservative pundits and celeb talk show wonks like to tell us to go back to the original intent of the ‘Founding Fathers”. Well, I have. And, it looks to me like they intended the idea of religion and government to be kept completely and totally separate. It should also be noted that Madison, NEVER EVER mentioned the Ten Commandments in any of his writings. The current misconception of this, used by everyone from Rush on down, is traced to an undocumented quote. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton In a letter to the Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833, Madison further wrote, “. . .I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others“ Thomas Jefferson, the author of the bill dealing with religious freedom wrote the following at various times. The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800). The clergy…believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800). History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813). In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814). We should also note the following, that Jefferson thought the States should take precedence over the Federal when it came to matters of state and religion. “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808).” On Jefferson and religious freedom and education. Today, it makes one stand back in awe and wonderment at the wisdom showed by both Jefferson and Madison. If our dear ‘Christian’ conservatives would sit down and shut up already yet, and we could get back to the writings and practices of the Founders, we could immediately eliminate all every Islamic school in this country. Problem is, in order to do so, we must also shut down our ‘Christian’ schools – if we want to stay within the original concepts of the Founders of America. Problem is, do our ‘Christian’ leaders today want to give up their power? This is taken from Leonard Levy’s “Jefferson and Civil Liberties, the Darker Side” “…There were six other professorships divided among a school of philosophy, one of classical languages, and another for teaching Indians reading, writing, and “the catechism and the principles of the Christian religion.” Jefferson proposed to abolish both the school of theology with its professorships of religion and the school for teaching Indians. In place of the school for Indians he proposed that a missionary be selected by a newly constituted faculty who would not teach religion but investigate Indian “laws, customs, religions, traditions, and more particularly their languages.” Jefferson‘s missionary was to be an anthropologist charged with reporting his findings to the faculty and preserving his reports in the college library. In place of the school of theology and the professorships of religion, Jefferson proposed simply a professorship “of moral philosophy” and another “of history, civil and ecclesiastical… … Jefferson and the Board of Visitors adopted formal regulations which provided that the “religious sects of this State” might “establish within, or adjacent to, the precincts of the University, schools for instruction in the religion of their own sect.” Students of the university were “free, and expected to attend religious worship” at the “establishment” of their choice on condition that they did so in the mornings before classes, which began at 7:30 A.M. The same regulations also provided for the use of one of the university’s rooms for worship as well as for other purposes, although the students were enjoined by the regulation of the previous paragraph to attend services in the theological seminaries surrounding the university.”(27) No part of the regular school day was set aside for religious worship. Possibly the proposal that a room belonging to the university be used for worship was intended originally as a makeshift arrangement until the various sects established their own schools of theology. None in fact did so for several decades, and Jefferson did not permit the room belonging to the university to be used for religious purposes. In 1825 he rejected a proposal to hold Sunday services on university property. The Board of Visitors, he wrote, had already turned down an application to permit a sermon to be preached in one of the rooms on the ground that “the buildings of the Univ. belong to the state, that they were erected for the purposes of an Univ., and that the Visitors, to whose care they are commd [commanded or committed] for those purposes, have no right to permit their application to any other.” His position was that the legislature had failed to sanction a proposal to use university facilities for worship and that, consequently, an alternative plan had been adopted “superseding the Ist idea of permitting a room in the Rotunda to be used for religious worship.”(28) The alternative plan was the one permitting the different sects to establish their own divinity schools, without public aid, independently of the university. The university did not even appoint a chaplain while Jefferson was its rector. “At a time when, in most colleges and universities of the country, ministers were presidents and common members of boards of control, daily chapel attendance was compulsory, courses in religion were required, and professors of theology and doctors of divinity had a prominent place on the faculties, the University of Virginia stood out sharply in contrast with its loyalty to the principle of separation of church and state.”(29) Jefferson cared very deeply about religious liberty. Diligent study and thought had given him a systematic theory, the most advanced of his age, and he put it into practice. His position was clearly defined, publicly stated, and vigorously defended. Although it exposed him to abusive criticism he carried on his fight for separation of church and state, and for the free exercise of religion, throughout his long public career without significant contradictions. In sum his thought on religious liberty was profoundly libertarian, and his actions suited his thought….” Now, try some of Roy Moore’s quotes. The man does not know the Constitution and history of the founding of this country. “And that’s not only true with this judge, but also with many of the federal courts across our land who seem to think, erroneously, that the acknowledgement of God is synonymous with religion.”
“Anytime you deny the acknowledgement of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists.” “But separation of church and state was never meant to separate God and government.”
“But today, government is taking those rights from us, pretending that it gives us our rights. Indeed, those rights come from God, and it was recognized throughout our history as such.”
“I go back to the legal history that we have here in Alabama, our court case precedents, and the foundations of law to show that these things comport with the Scriptures from which we get our moral foundation.” “It can have a secular purpose and have a relationship to God because God was presumed to be both over the state and the church, and separation of church and state was never meant to separate God from government.” “Rights come from God, not from government.” “The acknowledgement of God was the very reason for the existence of this country.”
“The basic premise of the Constitution was a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances because man was perceived as a fallen creature and would always yearn for more power. “ “You must recognize the purpose of the First Amendment and why the Constitution exists by separating the powers of the various branches. It exists because man was a fallen creature – is a fallen creature, and those powers had to be restricted.” I think the late, great Barry Goldwater sums it up best, “On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” The Dalai Lama once said, ‘This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” If only Christians would practice this we would be miles ahead before we sleep. |
Post a Comment