Tribute to GWB

<i> I thought it was worth repeating many of these direct quotes. I don't know how much more unambigious you can get that the seperation of church and state was one of the primary, and fundamantal, tenets of founding fathers. To argue that because we have other symbols that reflect Judeo-Christian heritage that our founding fathers did not route out from our governmental practices, the seperation of church and state is therefore on less solid ground requires a very imaginative Consitutional interpretation </i>


ARTICLE 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 tranquility, of Mussulmans;


....by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the infidel of every denomination.



"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"

 

<b>RR : Why is that an insult to your intelligence. The Bible is more concerned with spirituality.</b>

You feel the Bible is factual, the "word of God" if you will. I and many others feel it's a book of fairy tales. If I tried to pawn off Jack and Beanstalk as something factual that would probably be an insult to your intelligence. Just because you have faith in something doesn't make it real or factual.

<b>RR : He is not the machine but he is the ramrod. His name was necessarily on those lawsuits because he was the candidate. GWB is by reputation an excellent delegator. So what if Baker was brought in and it smelled of Bush family decision-making: that is further evidence of delegation. Same with the chubby lawyer fella.</b>

He is the head of the machine. The entire machine works for him and under his orders. Delegation is a component of management and leadership so that logically means that GW was leading and managing the Republican machine. Baker being brought in wasn't some odd coincidence and a long time friend arguing in front of the Florida Supreme Court wasn't some odd coincidence either.


<b>RR : I'm neither saint nor purist. There are lies and there are LIES. Let's be realistic here.</b>

Legally speaking there is no such thing as lies and LIES. There are no degrees of perjury. The reason this particular lie is significant is that DUI is a felony conviction. Job applications in the state of Texas ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony. GW has presumably lied about this for quite some time and the normal citizen could easily lose his job over such a lie.


<b>RR :Why is it insulting if you consider it meaningless? Is there something nagging at you about it? The Bible says that God honors those who honor Him, period. There is no taunting.</b>

No one would ever use something out of the Bible to take an elitist view of their faith. That would never happen.

<b>RR: Norm Manetta, Secretary of Transportation (?) is a Democrat, so if you consider Democrats his enemies, he has appointed at least one of them to a high place in his government.</b>:

C'mon man, you're stretching interpretations here.

<b>RR: Propoganda is not an offensive word. You may not agree with the article but to call it offensive or propogandic is, to me, an unfair attempt to discredit it.

The unwritten aspect of this piece is the underlying reality of spiritual warfare in our world. Spiritual battles which are sometime lost (Clinton?) and sometimes won (GWB?). The important thing is NOT TO LOSE THE WAR.</b>

How could you seriously mean to tell people what they can find offensive? Even the Supreme Court can't do that. This article discredits itself with the lies and misrepresentations, which you've now agreed with to some extent.


<B>RR: Check out your money: "In God we trust." Be on time for the opening of a senatorial session and you'll hear a prayer of invocation. This unsurpassed republican form of government that we enjoy was founded by religious men and, indeed, they have written that it would take men of faith and religious tradition to keep it alive.

It seems to me that their attained objective was to not compel any individual to worship in any particular fashion, but that does not preclude the inclusion of religious values and traditions in the governmental entity itself. Again, check your money, etc. Those values and traditions were included from the very beginning.

The phrase "separation of church and state", I think, was born in the 1940s--- not coined by Thomas Jefferson!

One of the foundation of our Christian tradition is Free Will. That is why you should not be threatened by a Christian foundation to your US government. The more we push God out of our precious government, the more fragile it has and will become. </B>

All freedoms are threatened when any specific religion is deeply intertwined in active government. Separation of church and state is not there to stop religious men from serving in government, it's there to protect citizens from religious government. In God we trust isn't the same as In Christianity we trust. All religions share certain values and traditions, including free will and the concept of a God. That's not something that Christianity has a patent on.

 

My interptitation of your respnose:

Ottomaton: The founding fathers intended seperation of church and state. Here are the documents to prove it, by those founding fathers.

RichRocket: That is not the case, traditionaly there has been a strong religious theme to many government things. If this theme wasn't there, then why are we fighting about it now?

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

As far as I can tell,


#1 You don't provide any factual evidence.

#2 All of your 'evidence' is based on circumstancial evidence.

#3 Most of your points skirt around and cloud the issue. I'm trying to talk about the founding fathers, and you keep coming back about supreme court rulings and what people wanted between then and now.

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

I really am not trying to be rude. I would love for you to come up with refutatuions of my facts, or something,anything that has some sort of documentable evidence, but I see no supportable documentation. Only the dogged determinaton to stick to your case that 'that's the way it was' without any supporting evidence. Thinking it does not make it so. This provides little ground for a prouctive debate.

 

Ok, how about actual proof or documentation that it has existed. I still have only your word. Imagine we're in a court of law. What are you going to show to the jury to prove your case?

By the way, I apologise about the lazy comment. I didn't intend it that way. When I don't have the time to read a book, or my lack of intrest in a subject excedes my patience to sit through the book I consider myself lazy.

What I should have said is if you don't have the inclination to read it.

BTW, my impression of 'God' as spoken of in governmental works is what I saw refered to as 'the kindler, gentler god' which someone refered to when explaining why god in 'God Bless America' was acceptable to the majority as a national anthem while the much more clearly defined god of 'America The Beautiful' tends to wrankle some people.

As poorly defined as 'god' is in American tradition, it could refer to anything from 'god' as played by Allanis Morrisette in Dogma (While this view of god appeals to me, I can't help but think'Wouldn't that be ironic?' )...

to the 'god' of Jonathan Edwards in Sinners in the Hands Of An Angry God...

to the whacked out 'god' seen by Texe Marres whom we must rigorously defend from Comunism, The Illuminati, and Islamic Terrorism...

to the 'god' ariving by way of Hale-Bopp as seen by Heaven's Gate...

to the 'god' of Zoroaster...

Etc...

God is so vaguely refered to when mentioned it government artifacts that he could refer to any of these.

 

Judge: Mr. Hutz we've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

 

Sorry to keep returning to these old documents, but I keep forgetting the points I intend to make.

What happened when Robert Maplethorp put on an exhibit in Cincinati, or Gulliani sees some art that he doesn't like? People try and ban this art. The immediacy of the situation seems to make people forget the part of our constitution that makes it a right for people to express their opinions, no matter how offensive. This battle has been going on at least as long as the battle for the seperation of church and state. The will of the people is to censor offensive art, and the will of the people is to have religion in government.

The problem is that the founding fathers saw these things as having undesirable consequences in the long term. And, just as some art gets censored, some religion makes it way into government. The battle of those who believe in and understand the constitution, and the freedoms it gives us is to keep fighting for those fundimental prinicpals.

 

From The US Treasury

Your arguemnent about "In God We Trust" is, therefore, irrelevant before the middle of the 19th Century. The founding fathers and "In God We Trust" never crossed paths.

 

Another intresting article about the history of prayer in Congress. It information in your defense that prayer in congress is an original American tradition. It also points out that the gentleman who started it defected back to the British one year into the war.


The Political Move That Backfired


The above is a very interesting comment made by Martin J. Medhurst, in his article. He might very well have been the first to do any in-depth research on the subject of chaplains in Congress, the motivations of the legislators, etc. It appears that most who have pointed to chaplains in Congress have basically assumed that there were spiritual and/or religious reasons for their appointment. In fact, it is that assumption that is the foundation of all the arguments that try to define the 1st Amendment by the fact that the same Congress appointed chaplains.

The focus of this particular article, however, is not the First Federal Congress, but rather Rev. Duche and the Continental Congresses from September 1774 to September 1776.

The facts:

On Tuesday, September 6, 1774, the second day of the Continental Congress's session, it was RESOLVED, that the Rev. Mr. Duche' be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o'clock.(2)

On 4 July 1776 the leaders of the Continental Congress proclaimed the birth of a new nation.(3) On 8 July, only four days later, Duche' received a note from John Hancock requesting him, because of his "uniform and zealous attachment to the rights of America," to serve as chaplain to the newly-formed Congress. Duche' accepted the appointment and in his first appearance following the Declaration delivered a stirring prayer.(4)

On 17 October 1776 Duche' resigned as chaplain to the Congress. A year later, with the British occupying Philadelphia, Duche' restored the prayers for the king to the divine service. Though he was arrested by the British in late September 1777 for his earlier role in the colonial cause, he soon convinced them of his loyalty and, on 8 October, ten- days after being released from jail, wrote his "infamous" letter to Washington.(5) [link to letter]

What was the reasoning behind the value placed upon the Rev. Duche' by members of the Continental Congress?

Political:

Rev. Duche' was an Anglican Minister. Having an Anglican Minister as chaplain would at least appear to add a measure of legitimacy to the actions of Congress.

Many of the Members of Congress, as well as other influential persons were members of the Church of England.

Having a member of the church of England as the Chaplain of the Congress could have a very positive and beneficial effect on other Anglican Ministers throughout the colonies. Having an Anglican Minister as the Chaplain of the Congress could have a very important effect on the laity in colonies. Rev. Duche' was serving as the assistant rector at two well known Anglican Churches in Philadelphia.

Throughout the time frame of 1774 through 1783 it has been said support for the "cause" and later for independence and the war was never that high. In fact, many claim that at any given time 1/3 of the people supported the "cause," 1/3 didn't, and 1/3 were indifferent. Therefore any move that had a potential to win converts was important. For those who were "churched" they tended to follow the politics of their ministers. If their minister was in favor of the American cause, most if not all of the members of that church would be as well, if the minister was a loyalist, so too were most if not all of the members of that church.

The majority of the Anglican Ministers in America would remain loyalist throughout the years of turmoil, but any potential to win converts had to be followed.

Thus from the outset political expediency formed part of the historical situation which gave rise to government-sanctioned prayer. It was in the context of this Political coup that John Adams wrote, "[Joseph Reed] says we never were so guilty of a more masterful stroke than in moving that Mr. Duche might read prayers. It has had a very good effect &c. He says the sentiments of people here are growing more and more favorable every day."(6)

Duche`, it appears, was used as an instrument, a symbol, to influence those who identified with his position as an Anglican minister. Samuel Adams's ploy succeeded, in part, before Duche` so much as uttered one verse.(7)

Samuel Adams had wanted "a respectable Anglican Priest" to "hurl psalm verse at the British." (8)

In the end the Rev Duche' did not prove to be such a friend of the American cause. He resigned as Chaplain to the Congress in the fall of 1776, and within a year had declared his loyalty to the English crown. He capped this with a rather remarkable letter to General George Washington.

(1) "From Duche to Provoost: The Birth Of Inaugural Prayer", by Martin J. Medhurst Journal Of Church And State, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1982, pp 573-588)

(2) (From the Minutes of the First Continental Congress, as reported in Church And State In The United States Vol I, page 448, by Anson Phelps Stokes).

(3) "From Duche to Provoost: The Birth Of Inaugural Prayer", by Martin J. Medhurst Journal Of Church And State, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1982, pg 579)

(4) Ibid. p 580

(5) Ibid. p 581

(6) Ibid. p 576

(7) Ibid. p 576

(8) Ibid. P 576

original

 

I think there's a difference between a government in which our leaders pray and then go to work and a government in which prayer is the work. To put things in a modern context, the Founding Fathers basically didn't want our laws and government to be wholly based on a WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) mentality. It's okay to have displays of faith, but I think everyone would agree that we would have a pretty inefficient government if our leaders based all its actions on a strict interpretation of the Bible. While Christian thought is certainly present (and how could it not, when it's the overwhelming foundation of Western thought), it's not the only mode of thinking. Nor should it be.

These days, you see more attempts to remove certain aspects of Christianity from public buildings because unfortunately, there are too many zealots who use these symbols more as a means to demean the non-Christians in the workplace (i.e. "What do you mean you don't believe in Jesus - you're going to hell!!!"). The ACLU figures (correctly in my opinion) that if you want God, there are plenty of churches to meet your needs.

And displays of faith hardly constitute evidence that our government is a Christian one. On October 31, I would guarantee that there will be plenty of congressmen who are handing out candy and whose staff is dressed up (and if Ted Kennedy has been to the bar, he's probably dressed up too). Does that mean that our government is Wiccan for that day? I don't think so.

 

Signers of the Constitution
George Washington - Died 1799
Benjaman Franklin - Died 1790
James Madison - Died 1836
Alexander Hamelton - Died July 12, 1804
William Samuel Johnson - Died 1816
Alexander Hamelton - Died July 12, 1804
Robert Morris - Died 1806
Gouverneur Morris - Died 1816

Signers of the Declaration of Independance
John Addams - Died 1826
Samuel Adams Died 1803
Benjamin Harrison - Died 1791
Thomas Jefferson - Died July 4, 1826
James Monroe - Died 1831
Alexander Hamelton - Died July 12, 1804
Benjamin Franklin - Died 1790
Benjamin Rush - Died 1813
John Hancock - Died 1793

I hope you won't hold the fact that they all died from 45 to 70 years before the motto was adopted against them. Death tends to force you to keep your opinions to yourself.

 

That's a pretty big stretch considering most of them would've just been born as the last of the Founders were dying.

Never trust a man who doesn't know his Simpsons' references! Actually, there was a past poster named LHutz, kind of a cc.net joke. Do a search for some of his posts, they were quite funny sometimes.

 

I understood the pronoun ' their' to refer to the founding fathers. Sorry. Think about this. The events took place roughly 100 years beforehand. How often do you sit around and contemplate if you, through your political views, are more closely realizing William McKinley's, Theodore Rosevelt's, or William Taft's goals for the nation?

You seem to be lumping everybody before your infamous 1945 court ruling into the 'old' category, like they all sort of hung out and swapped ideas. The public's collective memory is about 10 years, and the vast majority of people interpret history through their own particular biases.

Example: My mother teaches High School history. Here current crop of students don't remember the cold war. As a result, they are unable to form realistic opinions. The vast majority say that if the United States had taken a more friendly attitude to the Soviets the whole cold war could have been avoided!

Do you think the vast majority of people even care what the framers of the constitution wanted? People want the world to reflect their image of how it should be. As in my example of censorship, those who are intrested in censorship aren't thinking about the constitution. Neither are those who currently advocate the locking up of all Arab-looking people to protect the nation.

You seem to believe that religious fervor in the US started at a vervor, and has slowly been declining ever since. This is simply not the case. There is a historical period, known as 'The Great Awakening' which describes a slow upward swing culminating in a mass of evangelical tent revivals between 1830 and 1860.

Question: Please Answer
Finally, given the general belief that the laws of god supercede the laws of man, if you assume for the sake of arguement that the founding fathers wanted no contact whatsoever between church and man, would not the belief in the supremacy of gods laws make you seek to overturn those seperationist ideas, despite the fact that they exist historically? Or would you instead support the law of man if you found it to be in conflict with the law of god, despite god's supremacy?


BTW, you're still attacking me with logic arguements, and circumstantial evidence. I'm disappointed that you feel strongly enough to continue to argue, but not enough to document your case with facts.