Jim
Actually, I come to the opposite conclusion as a resut of what I posted earlier. I see the monument as a real problem and applaud those who are striving to have it removed. While the relationship of the law to the ten reasonable suggestions seems to me to be tenuous to the point of irrelevance, the monument's installation by a rabble-rousing and self-serving politician like Moore is a very big deal for two reasons.
First, the monument represents a very real attempt, for whatever reasons, to exalt and enthrone a very fundamentalist form of christianity in a way that denigrates and perhaps even intimidates the adherents of every other religion. As we can tell from Lorenzo's text at the top of page seven of this thread, not even the two main branches of christianity can agree on the placement or wording of the ten reasonable suggestions, yet history from the Fifteenth Century onward shows that both sides have been willing, even eager, to kill one another over just such (to me, anyway) inconsequential differences. In other words, I see the monument as a deliberate attempt to maintain religious divisiveness in order to further Moore's agenda of self-aggrandizement.
Second, the US has decided, often painfully, to be a nation of laws, and to reject the history of sectarian dominance/subservience that characterized Europe for a thousand years and can still be seen in Northern Ireland, the Middle East and Iraq (Sunni vs Shiite) today. The US, not always that purely, holds itself above such immature behavior and sets itself up as a beacon of tolerance to the World. The MONUMENT, not necessarily the commandments themselves, represents a slap in the face to tolerance - it is a beacon of INTOLERANCE which flies in the face of the grand ideals that have mostly motivated this country and which supposedly underpin much of our current adventure in Iraq. can we really hold our system up as a model for the Iraquis to emulate when some hold it so cheaply at home?
OT: Chiff & Fipple: Fair & Balanced
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
"... he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws."
"... the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible."
(My underlining)
"... the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible."
(My underlining)
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
In a word - yes!madguy wrote:But Chuck, the monument, as you refer to it, in no way violates the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.
No offense intended, but are you one of those who would do away with religious displays on holidays, also?
~Larry
Government has no business erecting religious displays for religious holidays unless it conscientiously erects displays for all holidays regradless of faith. If the Courthouse year were filled with a succession of displays, not only for Christmas, but also for Hannukah, Ramadan, Easter, Purim, and a hundred more. Absent such an attempt, displays celebrating purely christian holidays on public property have no place.
-
Cinead
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK
The Founding Fathers and Deism
Again, much is perpetuated by liberal scholars about the Founding Fathers which simply isn't supported by primary source documents. The claim that many were deists, for example is one. This comes from Wallbuilders website at: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/s ... ourceID=29
The Founding Fathers and Deism
by David Barton
(We receive numerous requests from across the country to answer various editorials and letters-to-the-editor. The subject is usually the religious persuasions of the Founding Fathers, and the standard assertion is that they were all deists. The following is but one of many possible replies to such accusations.)
I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the "voluminous writings" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.
Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?
None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.
Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.
Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.
The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.
Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.
David Barton/WallBuilders[/b]
The Founding Fathers and Deism
by David Barton
(We receive numerous requests from across the country to answer various editorials and letters-to-the-editor. The subject is usually the religious persuasions of the Founding Fathers, and the standard assertion is that they were all deists. The following is but one of many possible replies to such accusations.)
I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the "voluminous writings" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.
Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?
None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.
Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.
Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.
The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.
Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.
David Barton/WallBuilders[/b]
-
madguy
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: southwestern New Jersey
Granted, but the majority of persons in this country are either Christian or Jewish, so , given that this country is founded on democracy, which means the rule of the many, what's the problem if Jewish and Christian symbols only are depicted?Chuck_Clark wrote:In a word - yes!madguy wrote:But Chuck, the monument, as you refer to it, in no way violates the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.
No offense intended, but are you one of those who would do away with religious displays on holidays, also?
~Larry
Government has no business erecting religious displays for religious holidays unless it conscientiously erects displays for all holidays regradless of faith. If the Courthouse year were filled with a succession of displays, not only for Christmas, but also for Hannukah, Ramadan, Easter, Purim, and a hundred more. Absent such an attempt, displays celebrating purely christian holidays on public property have no place.
~Larry
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
Actually, you will find that fear of Anglicanism greatly influenced the wording of the first amendment.madguy wrote:Lorenzo, thank you for this insightful post. As a born and raised Anglican, I was always led to believe that Washington was a steadfast Anglican.
In a nutshell, there were two competing proposals for the separation of church and state. One, the Jefferson proposal, is what we have today: absolutely no endorsement or prohibition of religion, period. The second proposal was the Patrick Henry proposal, which would separate church and state, but still recognize the USA as a Christian nation. This is, interestingly, what many people claim the 1st amendment "really means," unaware that this very idea was once an explicit proposal that was shot down.
A big part of the support for total separation came from baptists and presbyterians, who were wary of the Anglican church and afraid that any governmental nod to religion may one day result in a "Church of America," and more of the religious persecution they came to America to avoid.
Of course, as with all things you read on the Internet, you're better off verifying this with a history book to make sure my old brain is remembering this correctly.
Caj
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
No problem at all, if you happen to be Jewish or Christian.
Although this country began as a nation of predominently Christian people, there is a parallel between what is happening today and the conditions on which the country was founded.
Back then, there were conflicts and injustices arising from the divisions within Christianity and attempts to dictate which version of Christianity a given citizenry would adhere to. This country was founded on the premise that all should be free to practice whatever religion they chose, without interference from the government.
In those days, it meant whatever version of Christianity an individual chose. However, today the exact same circumstances extend beyond the Christian denominations to all religious choices, including the choice not to adhere to any religion, so long as their practices are within the acceptable norms of a civil society.
I don't believe the question of whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or something else is relevant here. What is relevant is that they saw the wisdom of writing the Constitution in such a way as to ensure that the government would not dictate the religious beliefs of its citizenry, even with respect to religions that were unknown to them at that time.
Best wishes,
Jerry
Although this country began as a nation of predominently Christian people, there is a parallel between what is happening today and the conditions on which the country was founded.
Back then, there were conflicts and injustices arising from the divisions within Christianity and attempts to dictate which version of Christianity a given citizenry would adhere to. This country was founded on the premise that all should be free to practice whatever religion they chose, without interference from the government.
In those days, it meant whatever version of Christianity an individual chose. However, today the exact same circumstances extend beyond the Christian denominations to all religious choices, including the choice not to adhere to any religion, so long as their practices are within the acceptable norms of a civil society.
I don't believe the question of whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or something else is relevant here. What is relevant is that they saw the wisdom of writing the Constitution in such a way as to ensure that the government would not dictate the religious beliefs of its citizenry, even with respect to religions that were unknown to them at that time.
Best wishes,
Jerry
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
The religious display becomes unconstitutional if it is big enough, and blatant enough, to send a clear religious "thou shalt not" message rather than existing merely as a piece of religious symbology with historical value. For instance, the little "In God we trust" on money does not violate the constitution because it is more of a historical artifact than an endorsement of religion, in the same way that the word "thermos" is become a generic word rather than a brand name. If you put that same phrase in big flaming letters in front of the White House, the display would become unconstitutional.madguy wrote:But Chuck, the monument, as you refer to it, in no way violates the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.
No offense intended, but are you one of those who would do away with religious displays on holidays, also?
In this case, it's "obvious" that the display is intended to be a religious statement---just listen to the guy who put it up, undermining what remains of his case by accusing the supreme court of failing to acknowledge almighty God, etc. Beyond his say-so, the display itself is pretty much in-your-face, big whopping tablets guaranteed to dominate any space in which they are placed.
Caj
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
I would even go so far as to knock it down to two, murder and stealing. Lying and adultery find their way into laws here and there, but any law prohibiting either, in general at least, is likely to be ruled unconstitutional if challenged. Sure, we have laws against perjury, slander, lying to the FBI during an investigation; but in the US it is impossible to pass a general law against lying. Contrast with other countries which do have laws against "spreading false news."Chuck_Clark wrote:Amidst all the bushwah about the ten reasonable ideas being the sole and only basis of all Western Law, or at least our law, which as we know is the only one that really matters, it occurred to me that if you think about it, only three of them have any real relationship to secular law.
Also, those two commandments that do appear in our legal system are very basic rules of conduct found anywhere. If we find a civilization on another planet even remotely like ours, probably they will have laws against stealing and murder.
Caj
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
Madguy, first things first: where in SW New Jersey are you? I'm in Princeton. Find any sessions out here?madguy wrote:Caj, I wasn't endorsing God or a religion ( mainly because I no longer see a need to "believe" in a Deity), I was just asking a question about law!
~Larry
Second, I didn't think you were endorsing anything, and hope I didn't come across as disputing any religious matters. I, too, was just discussing how the law applies here.
Caj
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
Here, by the way, is a link to the entire court opinion:
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/G ... pinion.doc
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/G ... pinion.doc
-
Ridseard
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Contact:
Re: The Founding Fathers and Deism
Thomas Paine believed in God, but he was not a Christian, and he did not believe in the Bible. He believed that God reveals himself in the natural world, not in books. (In _The Age of Reason_ he goes to great lengths to discredit the Bible.) For David Barton to quote Paine in support of his contention that this is a Christian nation is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.Cinead wrote:Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.