The Founders Got It Right
Religion now rests in a tortured place in society today, thanks largely to unfortunate and misguided rulings of the Supreme Court.
By Stephen Mansfield
Two days after he wrote the famous words "separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to Baptists in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson began attending church — on the floor of the House of Representatives. He would attend the makeshift church in the national Capitol nearly every Sunday morning for the rest of his presidency. Clearly, his understanding of the connection between religion and government is not the one we endure today.
(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)
We should not be surprised. It was Jefferson, after all, who insisted upon the Bible as part of the curriculum at the University of Virginia, Jefferson who approved federal funding for a Catholic priest to serve the Kaskaski Indians, and Jefferson who once said, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished anyone to be." True, he was far from theologically orthodox, he expected most of the young men in his day to end their lives as Unitarians and he angrily despised the clergy of his day. Yet, contrary to the secular dreams of an influential few today, Jefferson envisioned a government that would encourage religion while neither submitting to nor erecting a religious tyranny.
Even if Jefferson had envisioned a secular state, it would have made little difference in the early history of our nation. It was not his words that carried the force of law — written as they were 14 years after the Constitution was ratified — but rather the 10 words that are undoubtedly the most tortured in our history: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These words, the first 10 of our Bill of Rights, make the intentions of the Founding Fathers clear. Having just fought a war of independence against England and her state church, they had no intention of allowing the U.S. Congress the authority to erect a new religious tyranny to dominate their young nation. Instead, they denied Congress the power to create a national church. The states and the individual citizens, of course, were free to be as religious as they wanted to be.
The court oversteps
The result was a marvelous triumph of freedom, a miracle of history, prevailing for more than 150 years. Never had religion so graced a nation without controlling it. Then came the disastrous Everson case of 1947. Breaking with both legal precedent and the clear counsel of our history, the Supreme Court exchanged Jefferson's words for the first 10 words of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation between church and state" — which had appeared in neither the Constitution nor the debates that produced the Bill of Rights — was made the law of the land.
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state," wrote Justice Hugo Black for the majority. "That wall must be kept high and impregnable." Accordingly, the court ruled, no government policy or funds, at any level of government, may encourage religion to any degree.
It was, simply put, bad law: without precedent, unworkable and — given that Black feigned support for his reasoning from the intentions of the founding era — informed by the most astonishing revisionism. Now, the secularist storm troops of the American Civil Liberties Union and its like drive religion from the public square with the mandate of the Everson ruling in hand. Religious symbols are removed from cemeteries, student prayer groups are driven from public facilities, and religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits. All this comes at a time when America is experiencing a new birth of religious interest, one that could grant a needed infusion of nobility, ethics and wisdom to our national life.
There is hope: Measures are arising in Congress designed to hold Everson's ravages in check. There is also the possibility that the Supreme Court may have opportunity to revisit elements of the case in years to come.
A true freedom of religion
The most important point to remember in this, the 60th anniversary year of the Everson decision, is that our Founding Fathers did in fact make a covenant with us. That covenant guaranteed us that Congress would make no state church but that religion could be free to shape our national life with its ethical and ennobling content. We suffer for lack of that content today, and it is time for us to consider anew the wisdom of our Founders in guaranteeing us the blessings of faith while protecting us from the dark tyrannies of faith that bedeviled the centuries before us. The Founders' plan for religion in our national life was certainly more successful than the confused design the courts have saddled us with today.
It was John Quincy Adams who called to us from an earlier age when he wrote, "Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." We may well do so, but only if we return to the religious wisdom of our national fathers.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/ ... rs-go.html
More Religious Right Propaganda
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
More Religious Right Propaganda
I shudder every time someone holds up the "Founding Fathers" as stellar examples to us all. Slave owners, infidels, and possibly more....they had faults, serious faults. I'm not interested in taking on the religion of anyone like that or indeed, anyone besides my own self.
More Religious Right Propaganda
FredFlash;670789 wrote: religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits.How does that work, Fred? I can see that the church which owns the pulpit might lose its charitable tax exemption if the politicial issues were addressed in a partisan manner, approbating one party or politician, but that doesn't qualify as "threatened" does it? The pulpits echo with sermons attacking poverty, war and injustice don't they? Jesus did so you'd think the pulpits ought as well. Those are political issues.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
More Religious Right Propaganda
spot;670877 wrote: How does that work, Fred? I can see that the church which owns the pulpit might lose its charitable tax exemption if the politicial issues were addressed in a partisan manner, approbating one party or politician, but that doesn't qualify as "threatened" does it?
Nope, it don't.
Nope, it don't.
More Religious Right Propaganda
FredFlash;672017 wrote: Nope, it don't.
Then in what way is it true that "religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits"?
Then in what way is it true that "religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
More Religious Right Propaganda
As a Christian pluralist I in no way wish to see any form of theocracy here in Canada. We are a multi-cultural country with many different faiths. Which one should take precedence?
Of course I cannot speak for the United States but such a cry for a return to the old days could also happen here.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Of course I cannot speak for the United States but such a cry for a return to the old days could also happen here.
Shalom
Ted:-6
More Religious Right Propaganda
spot;672058 wrote: Then in what way is it true that "religious leaders are threatened if they dare speak about political issues from their pulpits"?
Beats me, dude. I think the essay is pure propaganda.
Mansfield commences his propaganda piece, by tossing a tub to the whale, as follows.
Two days after he wrote the famous words "separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to Baptists in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson began attending church — on the floor of the House of Representatives. He would attend the makeshift church in the national Capitol nearly every Sunday morning for the rest of his presidency. Clearly, his understanding of the connection between religion and government is not the one we endure today.
His goal is to divert attention from the actual words of the Constitution - the most natural and probable signs of the intention of the legislator, at the time the law was made, regarding the relationship of Federal authority to religion - to a writing of Thomas Jefferson, which did not even exist until a decade after the Constitution and Bill of Rights became law.
Mansfield, like most individuals not trained in the law, appears to be totally unaware that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, there were well established common law rules of legal interpretation. Most, if not all, of the first five men to serve as U. S. Supreme Court Justices, judging from their written opinions in the first case that required the Court to interpret a section of the Constitution, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), believed the Constitution was to be interpreted by these well established rules.
Beats me, dude. I think the essay is pure propaganda.
Mansfield commences his propaganda piece, by tossing a tub to the whale, as follows.
Two days after he wrote the famous words "separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to Baptists in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson began attending church — on the floor of the House of Representatives. He would attend the makeshift church in the national Capitol nearly every Sunday morning for the rest of his presidency. Clearly, his understanding of the connection between religion and government is not the one we endure today.
His goal is to divert attention from the actual words of the Constitution - the most natural and probable signs of the intention of the legislator, at the time the law was made, regarding the relationship of Federal authority to religion - to a writing of Thomas Jefferson, which did not even exist until a decade after the Constitution and Bill of Rights became law.
Mansfield, like most individuals not trained in the law, appears to be totally unaware that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, there were well established common law rules of legal interpretation. Most, if not all, of the first five men to serve as U. S. Supreme Court Justices, judging from their written opinions in the first case that required the Court to interpret a section of the Constitution, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), believed the Constitution was to be interpreted by these well established rules.
More Religious Right Propaganda
FredFlash;672353 wrote: Beats me, dude.Then - pardon my obtuse nature - why did you post it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
More Religious Right Propaganda
spot;672356 wrote: Then - pardon my obtuse nature - why did you post it?
Is there a rule that says I can only post opinions I agree with?
Is there a rule that says I can only post opinions I agree with?
More Religious Right Propaganda
FredFlash;674883 wrote: Is there a rule that says I can only post opinions I agree with?
It makes for a very disjointed conversation when you subsequently walk away from the statement and leave it orphaned.
It makes for a very disjointed conversation when you subsequently walk away from the statement and leave it orphaned.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
More Religious Right Propaganda
spot;675434 wrote: It makes for a very disjointed conversation when you subsequently walk away from the statement and leave it orphaned.
You got a point there, dude. I was hoping someone would endorse the author's views so I could jump him.
You got a point there, dude. I was hoping someone would endorse the author's views so I could jump him.
More Religious Right Propaganda
Fred Flash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote:
It was not his [Thomas Jefferson's words that carried the force of law — written as they were 14 years after the Constitution was ratified — but rather the 10 words that are undoubtedly the most tortured in our history: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. These words, the first 10 of our Bill of Rights, make the intentions of the Founding Fathers clear. Having just fought a war of independence against England and her state church, they had no intention of allowing the U.S. Congress the authority to erect a new religious tyranny to dominate their young nation. Instead, they denied Congress the power to create a national church.
The federal government could erect a whole bunch of religious tyranny, if the only limit placed on its jurisdiction over religion was a narrow prohibition against creating a national religion; unless "national religion" is defined as a "duty we owe to our Creator" established by any agent of the national government.
Fred Flash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote:
The states and the individual citizens, of course, were free to be as religious as they wanted to be.
Notice his emphasis on the several states' rights to be religious. I bet his idea of a state being religious is its assuming coercive or advisory authority over the people's religion.
It was not his [Thomas Jefferson's words that carried the force of law — written as they were 14 years after the Constitution was ratified — but rather the 10 words that are undoubtedly the most tortured in our history: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. These words, the first 10 of our Bill of Rights, make the intentions of the Founding Fathers clear. Having just fought a war of independence against England and her state church, they had no intention of allowing the U.S. Congress the authority to erect a new religious tyranny to dominate their young nation. Instead, they denied Congress the power to create a national church.
The federal government could erect a whole bunch of religious tyranny, if the only limit placed on its jurisdiction over religion was a narrow prohibition against creating a national religion; unless "national religion" is defined as a "duty we owe to our Creator" established by any agent of the national government.
Fred Flash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote:
The states and the individual citizens, of course, were free to be as religious as they wanted to be.
Notice his emphasis on the several states' rights to be religious. I bet his idea of a state being religious is its assuming coercive or advisory authority over the people's religion.
More Religious Right Propaganda
FredFlash quoting Stephen Mansfield wrote:
Breaking legal precedent, the Supreme Court exchanged Jefferson's words for the first 10 words of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation between church and state" — which had appeared in neither the Constitution nor the debates that produced the Bill of Rights — was made the law of the land.
I'd like to see 150 years of legal precedents supporting Mansfield's claim that the Constitution, as it pertains to the relationship of religion to civil authority, does nothing more than prohibit the establishment of a national religion.
...the court ruled, no government policy or funds, at any level of government, may encourage religion to any degree...It was, simply put, bad law: without precedent, unworkable and — given that Black feigned support for his reasoning from the intentions of the founding era — informed by the most astonishing revisionism.
The most natural and probable signs of the founder's will, at the time the Constitution was made, are the words of the Constitution, which grant the government, as Madison said, "not a shadow of a right" of authority to encourage or discourage religion, other than to totally exempt religion from its cognizance.
Breaking legal precedent, the Supreme Court exchanged Jefferson's words for the first 10 words of the First Amendment. The phrase "separation between church and state" — which had appeared in neither the Constitution nor the debates that produced the Bill of Rights — was made the law of the land.
I'd like to see 150 years of legal precedents supporting Mansfield's claim that the Constitution, as it pertains to the relationship of religion to civil authority, does nothing more than prohibit the establishment of a national religion.
...the court ruled, no government policy or funds, at any level of government, may encourage religion to any degree...It was, simply put, bad law: without precedent, unworkable and — given that Black feigned support for his reasoning from the intentions of the founding era — informed by the most astonishing revisionism.
The most natural and probable signs of the founder's will, at the time the Constitution was made, are the words of the Constitution, which grant the government, as Madison said, "not a shadow of a right" of authority to encourage or discourage religion, other than to totally exempt religion from its cognizance.