3 Branches of Government based on the Bible

It's completely true Joy.

The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense. The First Amendment, as written and agreed to by the Framers of the Constitution, takes care of that issue.

Oh, so the constitution is acceptable to you now? Why wasn't it when the America hating communist mooslim was running for president? The same moron that gives miranda rights to terrorist because he is sympathetic to their cause.

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
Oh, so the constitution is acceptable to you now? Why wasn't it when the America hating communist mooslim was running for president? The same moron that gives miranda rights to terrorist because he is sympathetic to their cause.

It was acceptable then and it is now. And I don't know why I should even respond to anyone who is so insanely dense as to continue to believe the President of the United States, the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama,is a "mooslim." Why don't you spend your time on something more useful, like maybe dedicating youe entire miserable paranoid life to tracking down the "real truth" on the place of the President's birth? Surely you are also a "birther" in addition to all your other pathologies!

Does the "mad" in your chosen nickname indicate that you are angry or crazy or both? I find some of each element in the twaddle you have posted.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense. The First Amendment, as written and agreed to by the Framers of the Constitution, takes care of that issue.

This nation was formed on Christian values. To say otherwise is not being true.

Then how do explain this article in the treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:

Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was read aloud in the Senate in its entirety, and then was approved unamiously. We know this because the vote was asked to be recorded. President Adams signed it and then made this statement:

quote:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

quote:

Originally posted by logical:
Then how do explain this article in the treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:

Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was read aloud in the Senate in its entirety, and then was approved unamiously. We know this because the vote was asked to be recorded. President Adams signed it and then made this statement:

quote:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

logical....

There is another string on here wherein the Treaty of Tripoli is discussed. See "Glenn Beck's WEIRD Mentor." The wingers who cannot deal with the simple reality of what that treaty said have posted up a bunch of circumlocutious pap trying to downplay its significance. The same kind of denial of reality is seen in the right-wing extremist treatment of the Civil War and slavery, notwithstanding the clear evidence of history to the contrary. (See "Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Were Anti-Slavery").

Expect to see a lot of anecdotal, personal, non-official quotations from the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution advanced by the right wingers on this forum and elsewhere (it has become something of a hobby for them)in support of the "Christian nation" concept. Of the compiling of such stuff there is no end, but it proves nothing. Those framers wrote a Constitution that says precious little at all about religion and what it does say is restraining and limiting (Establishment Clause)as regards governmental involvement and broadly permissive (Free Exercise Clause)in its treatment of individual choice and practice. The trouble with the wingers and their hot desire to "put prayer back in the schools"(meaning the kind of government- prescribed, government administered prayer that has been ruled Constitutionally prohibited)is that they want to use the power of the state to impermissively intrude certain liberties enabled by the Free Exercise Clause into areas forbidden by the Establishment Clause. Most of them don't even have the faintest idea what that means; they just want to have tokens of their local religious preferences inserted into the curriculum.

That which is is imposed by the state upon a captive audience of impressionable public schoolchildren is NOT "free exercise." Such activity is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause.

This is just one more ilustration of the hypocrisy of the right. They scream long and loud about individual liberties, but as to school prayer and classroom Bible reading, they are more than willing to compromise the religious liberty of public school students by imposing state-directed and state-led religious activity on ALL students in the public school classroom, irrespective of whether such activity conflicts with the beliefs of SOME of those students.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

See my post just above yours, "dude."

Your simplistic post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument does not carry water. It is one thing to opine that the rise in crime directly corresponds to some perceived decline in religion; it is another thing altogether to PROVE that, and you have not done so. You can draw all kinds of graphs showing all kinds of individual trends, but when you start relating one trend to another, you need to put up something that clearly shows a linkage between the two.

Tell me--are you of the opinion that the prohibition of state-directed religious activities in public schools has directly influenced crime statistics? Yes or no? If so, what is the evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

See my post just above yours, "dude."

Your simplistic post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument does not carry water. It is one thing to opine that the rise in crime directly corresponds to some perceived decline in religion; it is another thing altogether to PROVE that, and you have not done so. You can draw all kinds of graphs showing all kinds of individual trends, but when you start relating one trend to another, you need to put up something that clearly shows a linkage between the two.

Tell me--are you of the opinion that the prohibition of state-directed religious activities in public schools has directly influenced crime statistics? Yes or no? If so, what is the evidence?

Are you stubborn or dumb? There is no in between with you. Unless you've never stepped foot into the real world to see what has happened to this country since the 60's when your comrades began to destroy America and part of that effort was aimed at making Christianity unacceptable. Maybe you were raised in a room without doors or windows. Your lack of intelligence and common sense is ASTOUNDING! dude

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

See my post just above yours, "dude."

Your simplistic post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument does not carry water.

Actually his argument is more of a non-sequitur.

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

See my post just above yours, "dude."

Your simplistic post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument does not carry water. It is one thing to opine that the rise in crime directly corresponds to some perceived decline in religion; it is another thing altogether to PROVE that, and you have not done so. You can draw all kinds of graphs showing all kinds of individual trends, but when you start relating one trend to another, you need to put up something that clearly shows a linkage between the two.

Tell me--are you of the opinion that the prohibition of state-directed religious activities in public schools has directly influenced crime statistics? Yes or no? If so, what is the evidence?

Are you stubborn or dumb? There is no in between with you. Unless you've never stepped foot into the real world to see what has happened to this country since the 60's when your comrades began to destroy America and part of that effort was aimed at making Christianity unacceptable. Maybe you were raised in a room without doors or windows. Your lack of intelligence and common sense is ASTOUNDING! dude

No one has made Christianity unacceptable. In this nation we have the greatest freedom of religion of any nation in the world. Almost any conceivable form of what is or what passes itself off as "Christian" can be found here, practiced without interference from civil authority. Adherents to non-Christian religions or to no religion at all are protected in their choices and practices.

If you want to rail about religion and its diminished impacts on society, you might launch some of your bombast at the hucksters on TV e.g. the abominable Crouch family and TBN) who dominate so-called "religious programming" with the "prosperity gospel" money-grubbing schemes
they use to prey on the ignorant and the gullible. The image these patently phony con men (and women) project is undoubtedly responsible for making Christianity unacceptable to many people.

Your allusion the the 60s baffles me somewhat. You seem to assume that others share your ingerpretation of that era, but you have not specified anything about the 60s that supposedly set this nation on the Gadarene slide you seem to find it in. Was it the civil rights movement of that period? Was it the anti-war protests? Sexual "liberation"(not wholesome, but not a crime)? In the 60s, I and my "comrades" supported the civil rights movement and the anti-war protests. Were we evil? What dark evils in the 60s do you believe that I and my "comrades" practiced that set in motion the crime and decay of the decades that followed?

While you are at it, how about answering the simple question I posed in my last post,which you chose to ignore, namely:

"Tell me--are you of the opinion that the prohibition of state-directed religious activities in public schools has directly influenced crime statistics? Yes or no? If so, what is the evidence?"

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

Looking at the graphs, one can see a large upward trend in the various crime rates after the prohibition of state-directed religious activities.

Most of the graphs also have listed what may be a reason for the increase (Dollar limit removed, Vietnam war, etc.), but the death penalty graph implies a decline in the number of executions may be responsible for an increase in the crime rate.

Using these facts, if we lift the prohibition on the death penalty in schools, the crime rate should go down.

quote:

Originally posted by Alphonse:
http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

Looking at the graphs, one can see a large upward trend in the various crime rates after the prohibition of state-directed religious activities.

Most of the graphs also have listed what may be a reason for the increase (Dollar limit removed, Vietnam war, etc.), but the death penalty graph implies a decline in the number of executions may be responsible for an increase in the crime rate.

Using these facts, if we lift the prohibition on the death penalty in schools, the crime rate should go down.

I doubt beturdu and pogo will want to look at the graphs. The 60s that the brain-damaged libs look back at with such fondness was definitely the launching pad for skyrocketing crime. If I'm not mistaken, crime went down briefly after 9/11 because dimocrat voters decided to stop robbing, raping and murdering Americans because they were scared or shocked.

I have always voted democrat but folks like bitternut make me realize i don't want to hear no more bs. i am very unhappy with the way our country is headed. i remember a time when democrats were for working people. not sure anymore. i sure don't have bitternuts views, thank GOD. by the way bitternut why was you not fighting for this coun try during vietnam instead of protesting. tells me your charactor.as a vietnam vet i find you sicking.

quote:

Originally posted by rechardbettyrey:
I have always voted democrat but folks like bitternut make me realize i don't want to hear no more bs. i am very unhappy with the way our country is headed. i remember a time when democrats were for working people. not sure anymore. i sure don't have bitternuts views, thank GOD. by the way bitternut why was you not fighting for this coun try during vietnam instead of protesting. tells me your charactor.as a vietnam vet i find you sicking.

I am not going to address the entirety of the rambling, insulting, ungrammatical, marginally literate, inchoate twaddle you have put up here, but I will explain one thing. I did not fight in the misbegotten Vietnam war because I was not drafted. Also, for your information, I was registered in the draft classification 1-A-O, which is the classification for a conscientious objector who is nevertheless willing to serve in the medical corps or other capacity that would not involve carrying arms and killing the enemy. By the way, medical corpsmen have had a very casualty rare in all our wars, so do not make the mistake of saying that this kind of draft classification represents cowardice. It most certainly does not.

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by Alphonse:
http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

Looking at the graphs, one can see a large upward trend in the various crime rates after the prohibition of state-directed religious activities.

Most of the graphs also have listed what may be a reason for the increase (Dollar limit removed, Vietnam war, etc.), but the death penalty graph implies a decline in the number of executions may be responsible for an increase in the crime rate.

Using these facts, if we lift the prohibition on the death penalty in schools, the crime rate should go down.

I doubt beturdu and pogo will want to look at the graphs. The 60s that the brain-damaged libs look back at with such fondness was definitely the launching pad for skyrocketing crime. If I'm not mistaken, crime went down briefly after 9/11 because dimocrat voters decided to stop robbing, raping and murdering Americans because they were scared or shocked.

Are you really so dense that you could not see that Alphonse was gently gigging the mis-use of graphed trends to prove something that the graphs do not actually show?

To say this country was not founded on Christian ideals and ideas, you must either be unlearned or refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Aah, old officially Christian America, back in colonial days to the Blessed Confederation: back when there were property value to be assessed before being allowed to vote, slavery was not merely tolerated, but encouraged, when the First Nations were driven out of their ancestral lands, and Congregationalists, aka, Puritans and Separatists, in Holy-New-Jerusalem-in-Mass. were hanging Quakers in Boston and hanging witches in Salem, the Anglican clergy and vestry and rulers in Virginia and Carolina were beating Baptists from their parishes to the next, then fining them, confiscating their property and imprisoning them. Aah, such blessed times we knew then!

To be nominally Christian as individuals and founders does not a Christian nation make.

Why were Mass., Pennsylvania and Maryland founded? To thwart the outrages of official Christian fellow believers who did not practice the "right" brand.

Invoking the gods or God is one of the oldest tricks of the rhetorical arsenal.

Read what the Bible says:1 Timothy 2:1-2
''Pray for All People, I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.''

Thanks Mr. Nobluedog - a great lesson from the Bible.

We are and never have been a theocracy. Freedom of belief is a precious gift.



Thomas Jefferson:

In an Aug. 16, 1816 letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, Jefferson had this to say: “I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed.

“I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives,” Jefferson continued, “and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must be an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.”

..............................................

James Madison:

On July 10, 1822, James Madison sent a letter to Edward Livingston about the
appropriate relationship between religion and government.

In his letter, Madison said that in some parts of America “there remains…a
strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition
between government and religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed
is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the
parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between
ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance,” he continued. “And I have no
doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing
that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed
together.”

Madison noted that many people had once thought a government could not function
without an alliance with religion. The American experience, he said, proved otherwise.

“The example of the colonies, now states, which rejected religious establishments
altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and advantageously put on a footing of
equal and entire freedom,” he said.

“I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia,” he added,
“where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more
exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority.”

Concluded Madison, “We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better
without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that
religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.”

Freida--

You have posted a GEM of a quote from a founder who did not flounder!

Most of the founders were religious, but considered religion personal and private. They had the ghost of the Lord Protector Cromwell peering over their shoulders and knew the risks of mixing civil government with religion.

"At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;""

I can't find the actual reference for this statement, althought it is being kicked about all over the place.

BTW he was either a Deist or Unitarian.

..."and knew the risks of mixing civil government with religion." A shame we've forgotten what they knew.

quote:

Originally posted by rechardbettyrey:
I have always voted democrat but folks like bitternut make me realize i don't want to hear no more bs. i am very unhappy with the way our country is headed. i remember a time when democrats were for working people. not sure anymore. i sure don't have bitternuts views, thank GOD. by the way bitternut why was you not fighting for this coun try during vietnam instead of protesting. tells me your charactor.as a vietnam vet i find you sicking.

I think the more you look into people like buttern, pogo, frieda and the like, the more you will find NOT to like.

Why, oh why do all of these idiot libs continue to state that the Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State? That is NOT what it does. It guarantees that the Governement will not establish a national religion, therefore allowing people to worship as they see fit. It does NOT say that you must remove religion from everything that is governmental.

"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."

NOWHERE in there does it state that religion should and must be removed from governmental functions. If you're going to stand on a soap box and yell about the rights afforded to you under the Constitution, then you should actually READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't think that the Founders of our Country did not base their convictions about what went into the Constitution on their religious and moral beliefs needs their head checked. Just because it doesn't mention God by name does not mean that the beliefs associated with Him aren't a cornerstone to what the Founders of this Country put into that document.

Please people, THINK before you SPEAK and try and comprehend the reality of what is in the Constitution and not what you want it to be. Guess what? IT IS NOT A LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT. It is INK on PAPER (well actually hide) that lays out the LAWS for our Country.

quote:

Originally posted by wlcunningham:
Why, oh why do all of these idiot libs continue to state that the Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State? That is NOT what it does. It guarantees that the Governement will not establish a national religion, therefore allowing people to worship as they see fit. It does NOT say that you must remove religion from everything that is governmental.

"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."

NOWHERE in there does it state that religion should and must be removed from governmental functions. If you're going to stand on a soap box and yell about the rights afforded to you under the Constitution, then you should actually READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't think that the Founders of our Country did not base their convictions about what went into the Constitution on their religious and moral beliefs needs their head checked. Just because it doesn't mention God by name does not mean that the beliefs associated with Him aren't a cornerstone to what the Founders of this Country put into that document.

Please people, THINK before you SPEAK and try and comprehend the reality of what is in the Constitution and not what you want it to be. Guess what? IT IS NOT A LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT. It is INK on PAPER (well actually hide) that lays out the LAWS for our Country.

All right, cunningham, then YOU tell us just how it is constitutional for religion to be included in "governmental functions?" How far, in your opinion, can a governmental function" be allowed to go before it can be considered constitute an "establishment of religion"? For example, do you really believe that it is permissible for government, in the form of public school administrators (who are agents of government) to prescribe the contents of a prayer (including the manner in which it addresses the Deity), to require students to be present when that prayer is said, to determine where and when that prayer is to be said and who is to say it? THAT is one kind of issue our Supreme Court has had to deal with in considering the Constitutional limits affecting chuurch and state relationships. Where do you come down on that one?

I think teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in schools. If students object then they should be allowed to go to the library or the hall until the prayer or devotion is over. It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians. My faith has and always will trump the government. Actually it is my opinion that government has no business in our schools. Where in the Constitution does government get their powers to run our education system?

quote:

Originally posted by JOY4567:
The three branches of the U.S. Government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;

“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

Granted that the verse quotation is accurate; but it does not necessarily follow that it had anything to do with the Constitution.

Let's get a grip on things, right?

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
I think teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in schools. If students object then they should be allowed to go to the library or the hall until the prayer or devotion is over. It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians. My faith has and always will trump the government. Actually it is my opinion that government has no business in our schools. Where in the Constitution does government get their powers to run our education system?

You'd be all for that until a Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist teacher started leading prayers based on their faith. Then you'd probably be the first one screaming about them trampling on the rights of the Christian kids.

"It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians."

News flash: a lot of Americans aren't Christian, but are nonetheless have just as much faith as you.

And as far as where does government get their powers to run our education system? Well, you may be right that it's not based in the constitution. It's called federal funding. Public schools probably couldn't function without federal funds. If you want kids to have religion in school, there are plenty of private schools that will accommodate that.

quote:

Originally posted by lawguy07:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
I think teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in schools. If students object then they should be allowed to go to the library or the hall until the prayer or devotion is over. It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians. My faith has and always will trump the government. Actually it is my opinion that government has no business in our schools. Where in the Constitution does government get their powers to run our education system?

You'd be all for that until a Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist teacher started leading prayers based on their faith. Then you'd probably be the first one screaming about them trampling on the rights of the Christian kids.

"It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians."

News flash: a lot of Americans aren't Christian, but are nonetheless have just as much faith as you.

And as far as where does government get their powers to run our education system? Well, you may be right that it's not based in the constitution. It's called federal funding. Public schools probably couldn't function without federal funds. If you want kids to have religion in school, there are plenty of private schools that will accommodate that.

Another un-American communist/lib?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
The analogy is fine and good, but it does NOT mean that this nation is a "Christian nation" in any sense.

You're right. Because of people like you. As we have moved farther away from being a Christian nation, you see a corresponding rise in crime. Is that a "good thing" dude?

See my post just above yours, "dude."

Your simplistic post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument does not carry water. It is one thing to opine that the rise in crime directly corresponds to some perceived decline in religion; it is another thing altogether to PROVE that, and you have not done so. You can draw all kinds of graphs showing all kinds of individual trends, but when you start relating one trend to another, you need to put up something that clearly shows a linkage between the two.

Tell me--are you of the opinion that the prohibition of state-directed religious activities in public schools has directly influenced crime statistics? Yes or no? If so, what is the evidence?

Sometimes common sense is the best evidence. Something you are "evidently" lacking.

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by lawguy07:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
I think teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in schools. If students object then they should be allowed to go to the library or the hall until the prayer or devotion is over. It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians. My faith has and always will trump the government. Actually it is my opinion that government has no business in our schools. Where in the Constitution does government get their powers to run our education system?

You'd be all for that until a Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist teacher started leading prayers based on their faith. Then you'd probably be the first one screaming about them trampling on the rights of the Christian kids.

"It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians."

News flash: a lot of Americans aren't Christian, but are nonetheless have just as much faith as you.

And as far as where does government get their powers to run our education system? Well, you may be right that it's not based in the constitution. It's called federal funding. Public schools probably couldn't function without federal funds. If you want kids to have religion in school, there are plenty of private schools that will accommodate that.

Another un-American communist/lib?

Meaning, in your case, simply someone who does not accept your radically intolerant and screamingly aberrant views of things!

Here's another "un-American communist/lib" for you:

<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotation taken from Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madision on Religious Liberty, pp. 37-94.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817.

Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests that there is no specific religious sanction for American government.

Finally, a good deal of Madision's Detached Memoranda concerns the issue of religious liberty. This material is particularly important in that it gives Madision's views of a number of events that are sometimes disputed by accomodationists (eg., congressional chaplains, days of prayer, etc.).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct references to separation:


The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
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. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:


Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Against establishment of religion


The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).

[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).
On Congressional chaplains and proclaimations of days of prayer:


Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).


I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Did Madison want the Bill of Rights to apply to the states?


No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases [Proposed amendment to make certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states].
The Congressional Record of August 17, 1789 made the following comment on Madison's proposal:


MR. MADISON Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).
Madision's definition of "establishment":

One can get some idea of Madison's defintion of establishment by looking at his veto messages for certain legislation presented to him by Congress during his presidency. Generally, Madision's definition was expansive; he vetoed legislation incorporating an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia, and reserving a parcel of land for a Baptist church. Read in context, these veto messages demolish the claim that Madison would have turned a blind eye to minor religious establishments.


Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, to the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.' [Note: Madison quotes the Establishment Clause incorrectly; Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy comments on this misquoting as follows: "His [Madison's] use of "religious establishment" enstead of "establishment of religion" shows that he thought of the clause in the Frist Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law touching or "respecting" religious institutions or religions; The Establishment Clause, p. 119].

The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are in general unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of the denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to the violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty [Note: both of the last paragraphs suggest that Madision did not think it was the role of government to aid even the charitable and educational aspects of religion, even non-preferentially].


Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (note: Madison again misquotes the establishment clause).

Madison and religion at public universities:


I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

...With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University, with the feature peculiar to ours, will succeed here if any where. Some of the clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an Episcopal school within the College of William and Mary, though in a very guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which, if they have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such an experiment in the University of the State, endowed and supported, as this will be altogether by the public authority and at the common expense (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).>>>>

quote:

Originally posted by lawguy07:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
"It's time we stand up as Americans and Christians."

News flash: a lot of Americans aren't Christian, but are nonetheless have just as much faith as you.

News Flash type question: Can you NOT 'stand up' as an American AND a Christian? Is there an exclusivity between the two in your opinion? Just curious....

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

Here's another "un-American communist/lib" for you:

<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotation taken from Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madision on Religious Liberty, pp. 37-94.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817.

Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests that there is no specific religious sanction for American government.

Finally, a good deal of Madision's Detached Memoranda concerns the issue of religious liberty. This material is particularly important in that it gives Madision's views of a number of events that are sometimes disputed by accomodationists (eg., congressional chaplains, days of prayer, etc.).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct references to separation:


The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
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. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:


Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Against establishment of religion


The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).

[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).
On Congressional chaplains and proclaimations of days of prayer:


Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consists in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).


I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Did Madison want the Bill of Rights to apply to the states?


No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases [Proposed amendment to make certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states].
The Congressional Record of August 17, 1789 made the following comment on Madison's proposal:


MR. MADISON Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).
Madision's definition of "establishment":

One can get some idea of Madison's defintion of establishment by looking at his veto messages for certain legislation presented to him by Congress during his presidency. Generally, Madision's definition was expansive; he vetoed legislation incorporating an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia, and reserving a parcel of land for a Baptist church. Read in context, these veto messages demolish the claim that Madison would have turned a blind eye to minor religious establishments.


Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, to the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.' [Note: Madison quotes the Establishment Clause incorrectly; Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy comments on this misquoting as follows: "His [Madison's] use of "religious establishment" enstead of "establishment of religion" shows that he thought of the clause in the Frist Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law touching or "respecting" religious institutions or religions; The Establishment Clause, p. 119].

The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are in general unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of the denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to the violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty [Note: both of the last paragraphs suggest that Madision did not think it was the role of government to aid even the charitable and educational aspects of religion, even non-preferentially].


Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (note: Madison again misquotes the establishment clause).

Madison and religion at public universities:


I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

...With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University, with the feature peculiar to ours, will succeed here if any where. Some of the clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an Episcopal school within the College of William and Mary, though in a very guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which, if they have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such an experiment in the University of the State, endowed and supported, as this will be altogether by the public authority and at the common expense (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).>>>>

Very good butter-boy! Maybe someone will be bored enough to read it. Anything posted by an un-American doesn't warrant the effort. Sorry charlie.

OTOH, one of the first acts of Congress was to authorize a chaplain.

'Genesis of America' this Thursday February 4 -6:30 at Woodlawn Church of Christ