Skip to main content

The Economist is by far the best weekly news magazine going. Time and Newsweek have become little more than tabloids. The Economist is meaty stuff. Consider subscribing. Here is a very incisive article about church and state matters from a recent issue:

http://www.economist.com/blogs...03/religion_founding
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?

Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?

Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.


I'm not buying it. Your interpretation is crap.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.


Are you advocating theocratic states?

The Founders were racists and denied women the right to vote so the validity of their opinions is subject to debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?

Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.


I'm not buying it. Your interpretation is crap.


It's not "my" interpretation, it's the founders.

By the way, it is in English...just because you don't "buy it", doesn't change the plain meaning of the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Are you advocating theocratic states?


No I'm advocating what the Constitution says and what every advocate of passing the Constitution in the individual state ratification conventions said about the Constitution...That the Individual States and people of those states are SOVEREIGN.

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The Founders were racists and denied women the right to vote so the validity of their opinions is subject to debate.


These are tired, worn out statements used by those who have no other logical argument to fall back on.

And of course the insuation of racism, bigotry, etc. is supposed to shame me in to shutting up.

My question is...how is advocating the plain meaning of the Constitution...as the states that ratified it and understood it...in the name of economic and civil liberty FOR EVERYONE, racist?
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
The Economist is by far the best weekly news magazine going. Time and Newsweek have become little more than tabloids. The Economist is meaty stuff. Consider subscribing. Here is a very incisive article about church and state matters from a recent issue:

http://www.economist.com/blogs...03/religion_founding


The Economist used to be a decent business mag. Now, its mainly a left wing mag. Sorry, NO!
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?

Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.


I'm not buying it. Your interpretation is crap.


Crying towel! Enema?
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. They also made every effort to eliminate church from the government. If you really want to know what philosophy the founders used in forming our country, it was NOT some religious philosophy , it was the principals of the Freemasons. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that. A sovereign nation made up of sovereign states. You need to think that one through a little bit. That was tried in the mid 1800 by the Confederacy and it caused them some problems . Not a good thing, only one can be sovereign and it should be the federal gvmt.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?
You have obviously never taken the walking tour of Boston. One of the very first masonary buildings there is a school. The founders saw the advantage to an educated citizenery even back before there was a United States
Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Nice post renegade. Bteernu loves to throw fire, this time he got burned himself.


Sorry, ferrellj, but the Supreme Court, in numerous decisions, disagrees with you and renegade and that is just the way things stand now, irrespective of the multiplying of anecdotal quotes of the founders and the framers.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Are you advocating theocratic states?


No I'm advocating what the Constitution says and what every advocate of passing the Constitution in the individual state ratification conventions said about the Constitution...That the Individual States and people of those states are SOVEREIGN.

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The Founders were racists and denied women the right to vote so the validity of their opinions is subject to debate.


These are tired, worn out statements used by those who have no other logical argument to fall back on.

And of course the insuation of racism, bigotry, etc. is supposed to shame me in to shutting up.

My question is...how is advocating the plain meaning of the Constitution...as the states that ratified it and understood it...in the name of economic and civil liberty FOR EVERYONE, racist?


What insinuation? The Founding Fathers were racists as were most men of that era. They viewed women as subjugate to men. Hence the need to evaluate and reevaluate every word of the document they produced.

Those are tired and worn out statements because, like the Constitution, they are over 200 years old. If the states had not failed to defend the civil rights of their citizens,the fedgov would not have to intervene.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Nice post renegade. Bteernu loves to throw fire, this time he got burned himself.


Sorry, ferrellj, but the Supreme Court, in numerous decisions, disagrees with you and renegade and that is just the way things stand now, irrespective of the multiplying of anecdotal quotes of the founders and the framers.


You may have a small point...but "judicial review" is not a constitutional power delegated to the SCOTUS, it's a usurped one...but that is for another thread...

The issue addressed in the article YOU linked deals with the founders and their intent.

So what are we discussing? Original intent or 200 years of judicial dictatorship?
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
They also made every effort to eliminate church from the government. If you really want to know what philosophy the founders used in forming our country, it was NOT some religious philosophy , it was the principals of the Freemasons.


I have not disputed the separation of "church and state" "STATE" meaning in this context as central authority, not individual states...And I never said the forming of the country was based soley on a religious philosophy...those are your words.

Much like lumping "all founders were racists", I wouldn't lump them all as "freemasons". The leading Founders were a diverse group with Jefferson and Hamilton representing almost polar opposites.

quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
A sovereign nation made up of sovereign states. You need to think that one through a little bit. That was tried in the mid 1800 by the Confederacy and it caused them some problems . Not a good thing, only one can be sovereign and it should be the federal gvmt.


You have many problems and misunderstandings in that short little passage...and it's a shame.

Holy crap! "only one can be sovereign and it should be the federal gvmt."...Fascist much?

So I guess you side with the British during the Revolutionary period?

You've managed to sum up maybe the most Anti-American Revolutionary principle in just a few short words...congrats.

..."governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

..."That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

Any of this ring a bell?

Because "A sovereign nation made up of sovereign states." is EXACTLY the nature of the union the founding generation established.

The "problem" came some 75 years later when the central government decided it was worth killing 350,000...standardized for today's population 3.5 million...fellow citizens that did not agree with them.

Yes, no doubt we should bow down to everything and anything the central authority wants to do...

quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
You have obviously never taken the walking tour of Boston. One of the very first masonary buildings there is a school. The founders saw the advantage to an educated citizenery even back before there was a United States


Your very post makes my argument...I did not say the founding generation had no interest in the value of an education, I said it was not under the purview of the central government...and they made it that way on purpose.

Yes many schools, and many were educated...as YOU say before there was even a United States...imagine that...

Once again, Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I don't know much about Pawlenty and I would concede he does have a distorted vision of religion and government. But taking the quote that The Economist uses, at face value, Pawlenty is absolutely correct:

"We need to remember as others try to push out or marginalise people of faith—we need to remember this and always remember it—the constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

That is a factual statement.

And The Economist is being far from "unbiased" with statements like:

"The modern religious activists like Mr Pawlenty, though, commit the worse intellectual crime of effacing the secularism, deism and disestablishmentarianism of so many of the founders, baldly claiming they meant to put (Christianity's) God at the centre of American public life."

That is no worse an "intellectual crime" than that of the secularist trying to erase all influence of religion in the founding.

What is really ironic is that Pawlenty, the editors at The Economist or beternU, while they all throw quotes around arguing who more closely resembles the Founders...or who is an "incompetent historian"...NONE of you actually support the principles of self-government through federalism under the original intent of the Constitution.

Yes, the founders wanted to keep the Central government out of church. They also made every effort to eliminate church from the government. If you really want to know what philosophy the founders used in forming our country, it was NOT some religious philosophy , it was the principals of the Freemasons. But also many states kept "official" religions for many years after the ratification of the Constitution. And yes founders like Jefferson disagreed with this practice, but he did not believe that the Central government had the authority...legally or morally...to do anything about it. Why? Beacause the several states are SOVEREIGN. And the principles of the Constitution as originally understood reflect that. A sovereign nation made up of sovereign states. You need to think that one through a little bit. That was tried in the mid 1800 by the Confederacy and it caused them some problems . Not a good thing, only one can be sovereign and it should be the federal gvmt.

The founders did indeed believe the central government should not be involved in churches...but they also believed they should not be involved in education, welfare, healthcare...and the list could go on and on...But would beternU support the constitutionally separated issues here?
You have obviously never taken the walking tour of Boston. One of the very first masonary buildings there is a school. The founders saw the advantage to an educated citizenery even back before there was a United States
Madison wrote:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

"...in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people..." In other words, whether education, religion, etc., etc., is NOT the purveiw of the federal government...but of the states.


seeweed, where have you been? We've missed you over on the Obama attacks Libya thread.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Nice post renegade. Bteernu loves to throw fire, this time he got burned himself.


Sorry, ferrellj, but the Supreme Court, in numerous decisions, disagrees with you and renegade and that is just the way things stand now, irrespective of the multiplying of anecdotal quotes of the founders and the framers.


It's a matter of personal preference. You choose to prefer the Supreme Court, I choose to prefer the founding fathers.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×