|
Author
|
Topic: constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 16 of 78 (259465)
11-13-2005 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
11-12-2005 7:49 PM
|
|
why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
If it is wrong, why did the same people that passed the Bill of Rights open up with Christian prayer? Why did George Washington claim religion and duty to God was central to the form of government and society we had embarked on? Why did Thomas Jefferson spend federal dollars to support missionaries out West? The simple fact is you are misreading the Constitution. The Constitution forbids Congress from making laws respective to religion. It does not forbid Congress from participating in religion in any form, nor any other part of the government.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by nator, posted 11-12-2005 7:49 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 17 of 78 (259494)
11-14-2005 12:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
11-13-2005 10:30 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
why did the founding fathers hold the truths that all men are created equal, and have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident, yet keep slaves?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 10:30 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 18 of 78 (259531)
11-14-2005 4:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
11-13-2005 9:59 PM
|
|
Re: my pledge
You just validated my choice for you for POTY with that. Although I still stand by my opinion that no pledge is needed, I'd be more than happy to take that pledge. In fact, I think I'll champion it from now on. Why not start a movement (send it to Congress) to get a new pledge. I don't see why it would be hated and it even sounds modern.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2005 9:59 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 19 of 78 (259553)
11-14-2005 7:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
11-13-2005 10:30 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
Because they lived with christians? This does not alter the fact that they supported a government of the people by the people for the people Read "The Christian Nation Myth" by Farrel Till The Christian Nation Myth » Internet Infidels Note in particular that the constitutional convention voted on whether to include god in the constitution and that it was defeated. Read how Jefferson and Washington and many other founders -- specifically the ones that were the movers and shakers of creating this country -- were not christian or were christian and had no problem with a separation between government by people and religions of all stripes. The simple fact is that it is you that is wishful thinking reading something that is NOT there. What a surprise. {abe}There is one place - and only one place - that {god or religion} is mentioned in the constitution .... do you know what it says? {/abe} Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*14*2005 07:06 AM Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 10:30 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 20 of 78 (259725)
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
11-14-2005 7:04 AM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
RAZD, better yet. Ignore the infidels site and read George Washington's inaugural addresses, which are more religious in nature than some sermons. He explicitly states the government's purpose is to please God, and that only in pleasing the Creator can the government and people succeed. Separation of Church and State is not the same thing as separation of God from the State, and Washington rebukes the whole secularist notion quite pointedly in his 2nd Inaugural Address, which in context is a strong rebuke of the secularism of the French revolution and secularist advocates such as Thomas Paine.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 7:04 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 78 (259733)
11-14-2005 6:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
|
|
Deist gods.
Yawn Yes, read the address, ... with the understanding that Washington was a deist and NOT a christian. Look at the wording in detail. Better yet read what the religious people of the time -- that knew him -- had to say, the ones that are the forefathers of the fundamentalists, and who actively campaigned against Jefferson ... because of the purposeful exclusion of religion from the constitution. As completely covered in the "infidel" site. Methinks you won't read the site or accept anything from it because you have labelled it before opening it. You also haven't answered the question about what part in the constitution talks about {god\religion}. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:13 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:44 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 22 of 78 (259737)
11-14-2005 6:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
11-14-2005 6:36 PM
|
|
Re: Deist gods.
In the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter at all if Washington was a Deist at that time or a born-again Christian. Either way, he was very religious. Furthermore, by some of you guys' analysis, Bush is a heathen that never got saved and laughs at overly religious people. Washington may have been a Deist as a young man, whether he remained one is in doubt, but either way he felt that the role of government was to please the Creator and follow His will, and he stated that quite plainly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 6:36 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 23 of 78 (259741)
11-14-2005 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
Actually, here is elsewhere I meant first inaugural address. Shall we look at Washington's first official action?
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe He considered his official act, note the word "official", should be to offer fervent prayer to God. Let's look at the quote in context and see if this is a side comment of a politician or fundamental to his political philosophy.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
He closes with:
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend. Page Not Found | Yale University All in all, I think Washington's first address is the most religious and religiously motivated speech any president has probably ever given as president to the nation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:13 PM | | randman has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 10:53 PM | | randman has not replied | | | Message 36 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:40 AM | | randman has replied | | | Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 6:23 PM | | randman has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 78 (259750)
11-14-2005 10:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
11-14-2005 6:55 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
It's a political speech, by a leader that knows that it is not necessary to antagonise the troops ... ... and he still refers to a deist god -- that rules the universe by natural laws. You didn't answer the question on that issue again. This does not make him an advocate for making a theocracy out of the USA or to bend it to one religion over others. Note:
After George Washington's death, Christians made an intense effort to claim him as one of their own. This effort was based largely on the grounds that Washington had regularly attended services with his wife at an Episcopal Church and had served as a vestryman in the church. Wilson had inquired of the Reverend Abercrombie [identified earlier as the rector of the church Washington had attended] concerning Washing ton's religious views. Abercrombie's response was brief and to the point "Sir, Washington was a Deist" (Remsberg, p. 110). ... when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, ... Dr. Moncure D. Conway, ... "In editing a volume of Washington's private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his time. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman's doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church. In his many letters to his adopted nephew and younger relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity." "The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the 'Great Author,' 'Almighty Being,' 'invisible hand,' and 'benign parent of the human race,' but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word 'God' ('The United States in 1787,' 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W, W, Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36)."
These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or else they referred to their creator as "nature's God," the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law. Moncure Conway also stated that "(t)here is no evidence to show that Washington, even in early life, was a believer in Christianity" (Ibid.). Remsberg also noted that Conway stated that Washington's father had been a Deist and that his mother "was not excessively religious" (Ibid.). The people poking there little noses into the personal life of Washington and his family about his personal private religious beliefs were the forefathers of the fundamentalists. Why can't they let people be?
randman writes: All in all, I think Washington's first address is the most religious and religiously motivated speech any president has probably ever given as president to the nation. So therefore we should teach Deist theology in public high school science classes? Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:55 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 25 of 78 (259758)
11-14-2005 11:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-14-2005 6:13 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
RAZD, better yet. Ignore the infidels site and read George Washington's inaugural addresses, which are more religious in nature than some sermons. He explicitly states the government's purpose is to please God, and that only in pleasing the Creator can the government and people succeed. q. know how to tell a politician is lying? a. his lips are moving.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 6:13 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6492 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 26 of 78 (259761)
11-14-2005 11:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
11-14-2005 7:04 AM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
First, let me say that I have enjoyed your able refutation of the tired old "Christian Country/Christian Founders" argument. Well done. Still, I feel compelled to present a small point of fact. Religion is mentioned twice in the Constitution. Article 6, clause 3 reads:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This mention is of course in addition to the more famous reference in the First Amendment.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 7:04 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:23 PM | | mikehager has replied |
|
AK-7
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 78 (259763)
11-14-2005 11:21 PM
|
|
|
In response to the original post, I do think that including God in the pledge is illegal/unconstitutional (for many of the same reasons that some of you have already raised). I do not, however, think this matters, or that it is explicitly bad. Of course, then you get into the murky world of good & bad, but I'll put it another way. The role of prisons is not to simply punish the prisoner; in fact, except for life sentences and the death penalty, this is never the case. The goal of prisons is to make the inmates better members of society. So if including "God" in the pledge makes people religious, and thus makes them "better" members of society, couldn't one justify this? Simply as a method of making them better members of society? Couldn't you even justify forcing religion upon people if that made them better members of society? Isn't that what the government is for, after all, with all the laws and rules, isn't it to govern the society and make/help everyone fit in? As a complete and total, but non-evangelical, atheist, I don't know whether this would be "right" or not, I in fact think that "right" does not exist. But I think that enforced or coerced or encouraged religion is probably an effective tool that has been and will continue to be used by governments to keep the populace in line. It works, and whether it's right or constitutional is beside the point in the mind of the government.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 78 (259765)
11-14-2005 11:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by mikehager
11-14-2005 11:09 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
This mention is of course in addition to the more famous reference in the First Amendment. That is the one instance that it is mentioned IN the constitution. Congrats, you answered what randman dodged. The big question back to those who think religion should be ensconced in government is -- why would they word it that way UNLESS the founders envisaged a seperation between religions and government. Thanks, but Ferrel Till did the heavy lifting. And if randman had read the article he would have known what to expect.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by mikehager, posted 11-14-2005 11:09 PM | | mikehager has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by mikehager, posted 11-14-2005 11:29 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6492 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 29 of 78 (259768)
11-14-2005 11:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
11-14-2005 11:23 PM
|
|
Re: why did the founding Congress open with prayer?
Ah... yet again I find myself being pedantic. It's a weakness of mine. It was just annoying me to see so simple and pertinent a question being ignored. I have a link in my favorites to an online copy of the Constitution for just such emergencies. Here it is, if anyone wants the link: Page Not Found
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:23 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 78 (259770)
11-14-2005 11:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by AK-7
11-14-2005 11:21 PM
|
|
welcome to the fray AK-7.
Couldn't you even justify forcing religion upon people if that made them better members of society? Some could. I wouldn't. All that is needed is non-anti-social behavior, it doesn't require us all to be "saints" eh? The purpose of a Free Government is to allow people to pursue their happiness as long as it does not interfere with the happiness\rights of others. And first you would have to demonstrate that it actually is the religion that is really responsible (and which one was most efficacious in that effect), and it would be very difficult to remove all the contributing elements. Certainly you can try refute this with prison beliefs data (that show a slightly higher proportion of believers in prison than in the general population), but there are other factors involved: you would have to control for education, economic status and political pull for instance.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by AK-7, posted 11-14-2005 11:21 PM | | AK-7 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by AK-7, posted 11-14-2005 11:57 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2