Marriage Amendment

Here are some more interesting quotes from Thomas Jefferson, on the nature of religion and government..."Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779."History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813."In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.Interestingly enough this government secularism has further implications, which he has also stated, and the wallbuilders of Tokyojim's link, have no interest in deliberating..."I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814."Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817."No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817.And just for kicks, here appears to be a belated post from Thomas Jefferson to EvC..."Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.Hmmmmmmm, does this mean that your wallbuilder friends believe that evolution should be taught in school?And Tokyo, this is the tip of the iceberg... I could go for a while on Jefferson, but I'll probably move on just for some diversity. Should I move to Franklin, or are you ready to yell "founding uncle" yet?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you think that the Founding Fathers cleaved closely to the Bible I think you're mistaken.And moreover they - especially Jefferson - recognized that the law has to change to match evolving opinions and sensibilities. This is the perfect example of that. Many of the Founding Fathers kept slaves. Does that speak volumes to you as well?Ultimately it doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers thought about it, because they wrote into the Constitution the flexibility that stemsfrom the realization that what they thought wasright then isn't what we would think is right, now.What else do you think the Ninth Amendment is for? No, it won't matter.Let me leave you with the words of Jefferson on what you think the basis of our Constitution is:

quote:

---

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

​

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

---

Certainly the founders were men of Christian principle. But it's a mistake to think that those principles formed the basis of our government.

quote:

---

It was you who brought up the word nuclear, not me.

---

Do you really need me to cut n paste what you said?

quote:

---

Now I think the jury is still out on same sex couples, but the fact that kids need a Mom and a Dad - this is the ideal family situation - this is common sense isn't it? a Mom and a Dad is not the ideal family - is that what you are saying?

---

You clearly implied that you consider the ideal family arrangement to be (minus breadwinning arrangements) "one man, one woman, raising their own children".

quote:

---

Yes, the extended family did live together. Great. The point is, they had both a mother and a father.

---

No, the point is, they sometimes didn't have a mother and a father, and they usually had more extended family around as well as the rest of the clan.

quote:

---

I didn't say anything about whether the mother works or not. The extended family living together probably worked very well. But all the role models for marriage and family were of a father and a mother.

---

...or, a father and many mothers, such as in the very historically common practice of polygamy.

quote:

---

That is how it was designed to work.

---

It seems to me that the writers of the Bible thought that God "designed" marriage to be polygamous, at least for a while, and they thought that God "designed" marriage to be a union between a man and female chattel.What's obvious to you was not obvious to the writers of the Bible.

Do you seriously believe that you can read such thoughts in what I said? That is a sad, twisted, polluted, and arrogant reaction to a rational argument.

Didn't you say you were an adherent to the "traditional" definition of marriage? What's wrong? Is Dan's definition too traditional for you?

And what rights are being denied homosexuals? They have exactly the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that everyone else has.

Marriage isn't a right given to a person. It's a right given to couples.Go on, try it out for yourself. Go down to the courthouse alone and get married. Not "married to somebody", but just married.See? Marriage doesn't create a couple, it assumes one. You need to be in a couple as prerequisite to marriage.So the question isn't "what rights are being denied to homosexuals," but rather, "what rights are being denied to certain couples?" And that is of course the right for certain couples to gain the benefits of marriage.Denying marriage to gay couples unfairly discriminates against certain couples, just like anti-interracial marriage discriminated against certain couples. After all, everybody had the sameright tomarry someone of their own race, right?You're free to oppose gay marriage. Hope you enjoy the company - racists, bigots, zealots, etc.Oh, and by the way, you didn't answer the question that I asked. So I'll repeat it - whose rights does it take away to allow gay marriage?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-07-2004]

What good is that? We don't want to marry the opposite sex. And frankly, we don't much care what you think. You want to impose your supposedly biblical view of morality on us, when in all likelihood you are unwilling to live by Jesus' words yourself.Jesus never had the first word to say about gay marriage, nor about homosexuality in general. If you'll read Matthew chapter 19, though, you'll find that he had some very specific feelings about the institution of marriage.You are certainly free to believe that Jesus would disapprove of gay marriage, and you are also free to do anything in your power to try to stop gays from gaining the right to marry. However, unless you are also willing to support legislation outlawing second marriages (Jesus says that they're always adulterous), and would even support a contitutional ban on second marriages, then you are a hypocrite of the highest order!You and all the other xians from hell need to live by the bible yourselves or stop trying to force other people to live by it.

quote:

---

Do you seriously believe that you can read such thoughts in what I said? That is a sad, twisted, polluted, and arrogant reaction to a rational argument.

---

Do you want to respect the traditional goals of marriage or not?Don't get on my ass just because using your logic leads to sad, twisted, polluted, and arrogant ideas.

quote:

---

And what rights are being denied homosexuals? They have exactly the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that everyone else has.

---

Just as once, those who were fighting against interracial marriage suggested that there was no discrimination involved because nobody was allowed to marry outside their race. Everyone had the same right to marry a member of their race.The courts called shenanigans on that pile of bigoted horseshit, and established that everyone has the freedom to marry who they want. This is the right being denied to homosexuals... the freedom to marry who they want.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Crash,How are you? It's been a while. I was home for my Mother-in-law's funeral. Back in Japan now though. Let me interact with your post a little here.TJ: What I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers had very
strong feelings against homosexuality itself.

quote:

---

Crash: If you think that the Founding Fathers cleaved closely to the Bible I think you're mistaken.

---

TJ: Well, I guess I need some proof to believe what you are saying. Yes, I do think that most of them did. The book entitled Original Intent by David Barton from Wallbuilders.com is chocked full of quotes from the writings of the Founding Fathers, rulings by the courts at that time, laws on record in the colonies from that time and it is quite clear. You mentioned that "many"of them had slaves. Some of them did. "many"is off the mark. Some, like George Washingtion, inherited slaves and then set them free after the revolution because they were against slavery. Far more were against it than were for it, and the reasons given for their opposition were often related to their religious convictions "that all men were created equal." Many of the Founding Fathers did actually try and fight against slavery and even appealed to the King of England numerous times to stop the slave trade, however he would not allow it. The main offenders were obviously the Founding Fathers from N. Carolina, S. Carolina, and Georgia, many of whom were Christians and who used the Bible to try and justify their sin. If you would like to read more on this issue and learn the views of many of the Founding Fathers, here is an well documented article showing what they believed and clearing up some myths about this.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...Plus there is a lot of misinformation going around about what the Bible does and doesn't teach about slavery. Most quote things to make it look as bad as possible, but it may surprise you to know that the slavery the Bible "permitted" was not the slavery that we found practiced in the South and in so many other areas of the world. Here is an article giving a good summary of it's teaching. For instance, did you know that if a slave ran away from his/her master, it was not permissible to return them to the master? In other words, God said that the slave must be given his freedom in a case like that. Also slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. Proverbs 17:2 Here is another article on the what the Bible has to say about slavery and then it examines the ideas of the Founding Fathers on the issue. It is fairly lengthy, but the abundance of original quotes makes it very accurate. I think that if you take the time to read it, especially the last half where it talks about the Founding Fathers and the situation in the US, you will find out that your views of the Founding Fathers are "a bit" misguided.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. "Nothing is more certainly written," said he, "in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free."(John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.)
Did you know that your hero Jefferson himself said that the principles of liberty are "the gift of God" and based his opposition to slavery on Christian principles?
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Trenton: Wilson & Blackwell, 1803), Query XVIII, pp. 221-222.

quote:

---

Crash:
And moreover they - especially Jefferson - recognized that the law has to change to match evolving opinions and sensibilities. This is the perfect example of that.

---

TJ replies: Ah yes, Jefferson is the new humanist hero of the 20th century. Funny how Washington, John Adams, John Q. Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Webster, Hamilton, etc. are hardly ever quoted anymore. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because there aren't many other Founding Fathers to quote in support of what we want to believe today? This goes to show that he was not really truly representative of the Founding Fathers. He is often quoted as if he speaks for them all. He was by no means a Christian, that's for sure.Yes, laws must change to reflect evolving opinions, but some laws cannot or should we say should not be changed. We don't make laws, our laws just reflect the natural laws established by heaven and they cannot change.
The standard of measurement for public policy and governmental action erected in our national charter is "the laws of nature, and of nature's God." Sodomy is an act against both "the laws of nature, and of nature's God." As William Blackstone (1723-1780) "the primary source of this phrase in the Declaration" had explained:
As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. . . . The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures to contradict these.
(By the way, Blackstone has been cited by the federal courts in an authoritative manner in over a thousand cases more than 300 of these by the Supreme Court. Obviously, the current Court now disdains the same authority on which it once so heavily relied simply because they it contradicts the wishes of people today.)Also, if changes need to be made to the law, the way to do it is clearly laid out by the Founding Fathers. It was not to be done by the courts, but by the people. This is a quote by Samuel Adams:
"The people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. And the federal Constitution, according to the mode prescribed therein, has already undergone such amendments in several parts of it as from experience has been judged necessary."
Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor(New York:G. Putnam & Sons, 1904),vol. IV, p. 388, to the Legislature of Massachusetts on Jan. 19, 1796.(as quoted in David Barton's Original Intent on pg. 231)

quote:

---

Crash:
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers thought about it, because they wrote into the Constitution the flexibility that stems from the realization that what they thought was right then isn't what we would think is right, now.
What else do you think the Ninth Amendment is for?

---

TJ replies: Well, you know Crash, I doubt the Founding Fathers would agree with you on that. Jefferson himself, although acknowledging the need for change, specifically says that when you do go to make changes, you need to consider the original intent of the Constitution and remain faithful to it.
Here is an admonishment he gave to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson:"In every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor EBoston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV, p. 373 to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823. (As quoted in Original Intent by David Barton, pg.23.This is only one of numerous similar quotes by the Founding Fathers.
And most if not all of them believed in a certain immutability of the law(at least part of the law). They recognized that it was God-given rather than man-made.
For instance, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton quoting Blackstone said this: "The law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this."
(Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 1768-1778, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, from "The Farmer Refuted", February 23, 1775, quoting from Blackstone.)Samuel Adams said: "In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."Noah Webster: "The "Law of Nature" is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any positive precept [human law]" These "have been established by the Creator and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, ordinances of heaven."I could go on and on, but that is enough to show you what the Founding Fathers thought about the origin of certain laws and moral principles. Certainly these could not be changed. These are all quotes taken from David Barton's well-documented book, Original Intent. You can get it on from wallbuilders.com on CD rom for just 10 bucks and all the references are there. But let me warn you, it is evidence that you would rather remain ignorant of I'm sure.TJ: Now we're going to turn around and throw away the morality upon which it was all based and we think it won't matter?

quote:

---

Crash: No, it won't matter.

---

TJ: You are a man of faith Crash, a rather misplaced and blind faith in my opinion and the Founding Fathers would agree with me. It would seem that you have even more faith than Thomas Jefferson who said:
"the practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He[God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."(The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor(Washington, D.C.:The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809. - as quoted in David Barton's Original Intent, pg. 321)Likewise, President John Adams proclaimed: (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Frances Adams, editor(Boston:Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229 to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798. - as quoted in Barton, pg. 319)The Founders believed that religion and morality were inseparable from good government and that they were essential for national success.

quote:

---

Crash:
Let me leave you with the words of Jefferson on what you think the basis of our Constitution is:

​

quote:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

​

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

​

Certainly the founders were men of Christian principle. But it's a mistake to think that those principles formed the basis of our government.

---

TJ: Crash, where did you get this quote from? Just curious.Regardless of that quote, the evidence points quite clearly in the opposite direction.For one thing, the Supreme Court said the exact opposite thing in 1892. In Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. pg 465, 471 (1892), the court said this:
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, Sate or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation."In making their case that the US is a Christian nation, they said this: (pg. 470,471)There are so many other court cases that state that Christianity IS the basis for common law that I can't take the time to quote them. Also check out the reply to Holmes that I posted or soon will post.Another note here - a summary taken from Barton's book: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws, introduced in 1766, was THE law book of the Founding Fathers. He is the second most quoted political authority by the Founding Fathers. In fact, so strong was the influence of his book in America that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.
Blackstone has been cited by the federal courts in an authoritative manner in over a thousand cases - more than 300 of these by the Supreme Court. His book was used as the legal textbook in America for 160 years from 1766 to 1920. If you know anything about William Blackstone and his book, you know his views were based on the Bible.The standard of measurement for public policy and governmental action erected in our national charter is "The laws of nature, and of nature's God." as mentioned earlier. As William Blackstone (1723-1780) Ethe primary source of this phrase in the Declaration Ehad explained:As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. . . . The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures to contradict these. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England(Philadelphia:Robert Bell, Union Library, 1771) Vol. I, pp. 39, 41-42(as quoted in Barton)And Crash, if you really want to know what Thomas Jefferson thought about Christianity, religion, government, and separation of church and State, then look at these actions and quotes from him all referenced at this site: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes; [5] Uh oh, call in the ACLU and arrest that bigoted President!!!"In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to "assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church" and to provide "annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest." He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in "promoting Christianity."[6]"When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. [7] President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol [8] and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. [9] Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [10] VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!"Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services;" [11] FOUL!!! What a hypocrite he was!(unless of course we have misunderstood what he meant by the separation of church and State, but naw, can't allow that kind of thinking.)By the way, this was taken from a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper like the other quote you gave earlier.
"Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive "the patronage of the government" [12]"Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word "God"in its motto;" [13]"While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson."[14] (Uh, excuse me sir, but didn't you know that you can't use the name of Jesus like that in government documents?!)Furthermore, Jefferson would especially disagree with those who believe that public prayers should be non-sectarian and omit specific references to Jesus. Jefferson believed that every individual should pray according to his own beliefs. As Jefferson explained:
[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. [15] (emphasis added)Critics, therefore, would be particularly troubled by President Jefferson's words that: OK, he may be wrong here in the sense that there have been nations since then which have been governed apart from theistic religion, but we have all seen and experienced the tragic results of such governments. But it is clear here what Jefferson thought of Christianity, even if he didn't hold to all the theological truths about Jesus.Crash, in the end, what I'm trying to say here is that the Founding Fathers are not on your side when it comes to homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. And I think their opinion is quite important. Obviously they didn't feel that such a view was unconstitutional, so why do we? They viewed homosexuality itself in a very negative manner and felt that laws against it were for the common good. They were very much Christian in their thinking and actions and it was their hope it would always be so which is why they stressed the importance of going back to the original intent of the words and the Founder's beliefs when interpreting the Constitution. This whole idea that denying marriage to homosexuals is a violation of their civil rights is a 20th century re-interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And don't mention slavery again to ridicule this thought because most of them were outspoken against slavery and many even made efforts to abolish it way back then. But you will not find one positive quote on homosexuality by the Founders. It was viewed as a moral evil from which society must be protected. I agree with them. You may think differently, but I just do not believe that homosexuality has a positive impact on society. And therefore I believe we are permitted to make a law against it.Regards,TJ

Jumping in here without reading the full thread, sorry if it has been raised before, but why should there be any government control of marriage at any level?Seriously. Instead of getting all hot about regulating marriage at the federal level, why whould it even be regulated at the state level?Let each church regulate it's requirments for marriage according to it's faith.All government needs to be interested in is who is living in which house (census), that the property and income taxes are paid, that any relationship between adults is by mutual consent, and that any children are properly cared for.Benefits for any programs should be based on the same relationships of dependants as are covered by income tax, regardless of marital status. Inheritance could be handled the same way (thus covering standard marriage and "common law" marriage).Note that this would apply to two single mother sisters sharing accomodations and many other of the diverse types of households that exist.You need to look at the full variety of existing households and ask why should a regulation affect some and not others when there is no visible difference - particularly to government needs - between them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Jeez, you're hitting me with a lot. It's going to take me some time to craft a response; I hope you'll bear with me.

TJ: Yes, it is a free country and people are given the freedom to believe in other religions, but the Founding Fathers saw a very important corellation between the Judeo-Christian code of ethics and a successful country.

quote:

---

Crash:
While I'm sure that they recognized the wisdom of the "Judeo-Christian" code of ethics, it's pretty clear from their writings - and the Constitution itself - that they saw that there was nothing uniquely great about that specific code of ethics - that many culture's ethics share a lot of the same points. That was what they based the Constitution on - not specifically Christian ideas, but the ideas that have worked for centuries across many cultures.

---

TJ replies:
Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and one of America's top educators said this:"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. . . .All its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well-being of civil government." (Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798,) p. 8, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic - as quoted in Barton, Original Intent, pg. 31)President Adams:"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
(John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45,46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 - as quoted in Barton.)In the 1853-1854 House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports, we find this paragraph: "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation....It (religion) must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. (Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Second Congress(Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1, 6,8-9 as quoted in Barton, pg. 30)S.C. Supreme Court in City of Charleston v. Benjamin(1846): "Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized....Christianity is part and parcel of the common law....Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong....it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall....it (morality) has grown upon the basis of Christianity."
(City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 518-520(Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846 as quoted in Barton, pg. 68)The defense in this case argued that to legislate according to Christian standards violated religious toleration. However the court vehemently disagreed with this argument pointing out: (City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 522-524(Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846 as quoted in Barton, pg. 69)NY Supreme Court in Lindenmuller v. The People(1860):"It would be strange that a people Christian in doctrine and worship, many of whom or whose forefathers had sought these shores for the privilege of worshipping God in simplicity and purity of faith, and should, in their zeal to secure to all the freedom of conscience which they valued so highly, solemnly repudiate and put beyond the pale of the law the religion which was dear to them as life and dethrone the God who they openly and avowedly professed to believe had been their protector and guide as a people."
(Lindenmuller at pg. 561,562 as quoted in Barton pg. 70) (Lindenmuller at pg. 567 as quoted in Barton pg. 71)The Supreme Court of Arkansas in Shover v. State in 1850 said this:
"The Christian religion....is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law and as such, all of the institutions growing out of it, or, in any way connected with it, in case they shall not be found to interfere with the rights of conscience, are entitled to the most profound respect and can rightfully claim the protection of the law-making power of the State."(Shover v. State, 10 English 259, 263(Sup. Ct. Ark. 1850) as quoted in Barton pg. 71)PA Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Nesbit(1859) said:"We are not forgetting that the public acts of our PA ancestors abound with declarations in favor of liberty of conscience."But they went on to say: "They(Founders) could not admit this (liberty of conscience) as a civil justification of human sacrifices, or parricide(murder of relatives), infanticide, or thuggism(religious murders) or of such modes of worship as the disgusting and corrupting rites of the Dionysia, and Aphrodisia, and Eleusinia, and other festivals of Greece and Rome. They did not mean that the pure moral customs which Christianity has introduced should be without legal protection because some pagan, or other religionist, or anti-religionist, should advocate as matter of conscience concubinage, polygamy, incest, free love, and free divorce, or any of them....By our....laws against vice and immorality we do not mean to enforce religion; we admit that to be impossible. But we do mean to protect our customs, no matter that they may have originated in our religion; for they are essential parts of our social life. Instinctively we defend and protect them. It is mere social self-defense....Law can never become entirely infidel; for it is essentially founded on the moral customs of men and the very generating principle of these is most frequently religion."(Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 84 PA 398, 406(1859) as quoted in Barton, pg. 72)http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...
34. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:"The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of REVEALED RELIGION are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law."
The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:"The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "devise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . ." He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that
Christianity is part of the common law. (pg. 470,471)US Supreme Court cites Commonwealth v. Updegraph (1824)"We find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law . . . .not Christianity with an established church . . . but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."US Supreme Court:
In The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290,294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice....We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors(other religions). (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 470,471(1892) as quoted in Barton, pg. 51)CRASH, SHALL I GO ON? Now, you tell me who I should believe. You? Someone who lives in the 21st century over 200 long years removed from the writing of the Constitution, OR should I believe the many courts quoted above who made most of their judgments within 100 years of the writing of the Constitution?I know who I think I should believe and I'm sorry, no offense intended, but it is not you.TJ: Obviously the early leaders of our country had a very high regard for what they believed to be the Word of God.

quote:

---

Crash:

​

Perhaps too high a regard, hence the language of the First Amendment. I didn't realize that you meant that the 10 Commandments influenced American law as a negative example...

---

TJ replies: Sorry, I don't get it. The same people who had such a high regard for the Word of God and the morality espoused therein were the people who wrote the First Amendment. They didn't write the First Amendment to keep Christianity out of government, rather to keep the government out of Christianity. Religion was allowed to have a part in government and they saw no problem or inconsistency with that at all. Jefferson is often quoted as being against religion, but that is not true in the least. All he argued for was that religious laws were not proper for the Federal Government to make. Instead he argued that these laws were to be left to the States. He said:"I consider the government of the US(federal) as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion(the First Amendment), but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the US(tenth amendment). (Jefferson, Memoir, Vol. IV,pp. 103-104, to Samuel Miller on Jan. 23, 1808 as quoted in Barton, pg. 25)And that is what we see when we look at the laws and charters of the individual states at the time of the writing of the Constitution. I could give numerous examples, but I will spare you.TJ: People need to know both sides of the issue.

quote:

---

Crash:
I agree that risks need to be presented, but they shouldn't be blown out of proportion. For instance, the risks of abortion to the mother should be presented - but it should be noted that the risks (especially for early-term abortions) are a lot lower than actually carrying a baby to term, especially for a young mother.

---

TJ replies: Glad you agree that risks need to be presented.
You say that the risks of early term abortions are a lot lower than actually carrying a baby to term, especially for a young mother. Surely you are not bringing this up to mean that we are justified in taking the life of the baby in the womb! Sorry, risks do not invalidate morality. They should know the risks before having sex. Anyone who chooses to have sex surely knows there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they choose to have sex, they are accepting that risk AND the risks of pregnancy. Even if they did not know the risks, that doesn't mean they can just up and kill the baby. Just because a person does not know the risks of driving drunk does not mean we should allow them to do it. Every time we get behind the wheel, there are risks involved and if we are not willing to accept responsibility for our actions, then we should not drive. Same with sex. Plus there are other problems associated with abortion that we do not often hear about. Emotional suffering after the fact because their conscience tells them they killed their baby. Risks of becoming sterile, etc.

quote:

---

Crash:
And it's important to point out that any risks you think are associated with the "gay lifestyle" are simply the risks associated with any kind of sex - disease, etc. And like heterosex, homosex's risks can be safely managed with forethought and planning.

---

TJ replies:
Yes, only greater. Unprotected homosexual sex is much more efficient at passing on STDs than heterosex.
The rate of transmission from consensual vaginal intercourse is about 1 in 500 and for anal intercourse 1 in 50.(7) In British Columbia the rate of HIV infection in the male population is about 0.5%, but it is about 15% among men who have sex with men and 30% to 40% among injection drug users.(18,19)Offering HIV prophylaxis to people who have been sexually assaulted: 16 months' experience in a sexual assault service | CMAJAnd I beg to differ with you. The risks cannot be "safely managed with forethought and planning." You need to get your facts straight.http://www.medinstitute.org/media/index.htmCondoms only offer 85% effectiveness against HIV according to the NIH report on condoms. The page you’re looking for isn’t available | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases pg. 17Plus, worse than that, in spite of knowing the risks, many homosexuals and heterosexuals go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway. I believe this is more prevalent with homosexuals than heterosexuals though. Plus they change partners much more often than heterosexual couples do. Here are a few statistics:In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.33 Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.htmTJ: Basically all I meant by that term was a practicing homosexual, but there are certain things that often go along with that. I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I do think there are some general things that are true of a majority of homosexuals, or at least are more true of homosexuals than of heterosexuals.

quote:

---

Crash:

​

All of the things you're thinking of, I bet, are just stereotypes. Like participation in orgies. Or unsafe anal sex. Or cross-dressing. Unless you think there's something dangerous about dressing well and having good taste? To tell you the truth I think most of the things you're thinking of are more common among straight people than gay people.
Gay people aren't sexual libertines with multiple anonymous partners, any more than straight people are. Like straight people, most of them have really vanilla, plain-jane sex lives.

---

TJ replies:
Here are the results of one survey done in Canada and published in 2000:"Interpretation: The incidence of HIV infection is unacceptably high among this cohort of young gay and bisexual men. Homosexual and bisexual activity continues to be the most frequently reported risk factor among AIDS cases in Canada and the United States.(1,2)" HIV infection and risk behaviours among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver | CMAJThe incidence of anal cancer in the US is only 0.9/100,000. But among men who have sex with men that number soared to 35/100,000 in data gathered prior to the advent of HIV. A condom offers only limited protection because the genital forms of HPV require only skin to skin contact, not penetration or ejaculation. Page not found - Pride SourceResults of a National Institute of Health study on condom use:
What were the findings?
The report's findings are summarized in general terms in the Executive Summary, accessible from this web site. The panel's review of the literature found:+ Consistent condom use reduces the yearly risk of contracting HIV from an infected sexual partner via vaginal sex by approximately 87percent.+ Consistent condom use also reduces the risk of gonorrhea transmission from women to men.+ Consistent condom use may or may not reduce the risk of chlamydia transmission from women to men.+ Consistent condom use does not appear to reduce the risk of transmission of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection from men to women. Some evidence exists that condoms may reduce the risk of genital warts, but the results of studies to determine whether condoms reduce the risk of cervical dysplasia ("pre-cancer" and cervical cancer in women are equivocal (some show protection while others do not).+ There was insufficient evidence to make statements about condom effectiveness for any other STDs, including gonorrhea or chlamydia transmission from men to women and transmission of genital herpes, trichomoniasis, chancroid or syphilis.The available scientific evidence shows that condoms appear to reduce one's risk of contracting or transmitting only two STDs: HIV and gonorrhea (in men). Page not foundResearchers from the University of California, San Francisco studied a nationwide sample of 1,397 HIV-infected men and women receiving medical treatment. The study was conducted from September to December of 1998. Around sixteen percent of gay and bisexual men reported having unprotected anal or vaginal sex at least once within the previous six months without disclosing their serostatus. By contrast, around five percent of heterosexual men and around six percent of heterosexual women reported unprotected anal or vaginal sex without disclosure during the same time period. http://www.gayhealth.com/...ates/1080281706783351812510/news More than 1,600 people(gays) completed the survey conducted between January of 2001 and January 2002. Compared to other types of sex, 42.2 percent of respondents said oral sex is their favorite type of sex, and 20 percent said it is tied with anal sex.
It's probably no surprise that oral sex is one of your favorite types of sex, but most people forgo condoms and dental dams while giving -- and getting -- oral sex, even with casual sexual partners. http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/common/feature.html?...Crash, one thing I have in mind here is the brevity of relationships. Here is one gay man's take on this:"At the tender age of twenty-five, I am not supposed to have the sense and self-control to remain faithful to Andy. I was to be a quick flavor-of-the-month, our relationship a fleeting, passing thing, over in a moment. It certainly was not meant to last as long as it has. Most of Andy's friends are gay men his age, and not one of them put much faith into our relationship. Each time I arrived at a party or dinner, I could see the surprise on their faces, as if to say that they still couldn't believe that we were together, or that they were sure we would fall apart shortly thereafter. Such is the support of the gay community, and the culture of America as a whole." http://rainbowarch.com/...s/alanilagan/whatagayguywants.htmlNow, in his circles, staying together was the exception. Here is another:"It is likely the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population. As many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year." (p. 14) The researchers estimate that battery occurs in 50 percent of gay male couples (p. 12). (Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, by David Island and Patrick Letellier, co-editors of the National Lesbian & Gay Domestic Violence Network newsletter)The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors engag(ing) in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."(Garofalo, Robert, et al. "The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101, no. 5, May 1998: 895-902.)Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg studied 574 white male homosexuals, 100 percent of whom had already had at least three sexual partners, 97 percent at least ten, 75 percent at least one hundred, and 28 percent at least one thousand. (Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, 81-93, 308-9.)David P. McWhirter and Andrew W. Mattison (both homosexual) studied 156 male homosexual couples, most of whom once expected to have a sexually exclusive relationship, and found that only seven of these couples -- none of whom had been together five years -- claimed to have succeeded. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984, 252-59.)These are the types of things I had in mind.Regards,TJ

quote:TJ: What revisionist literature have you been reading?! Read this for starters: (posts link to revisionist literature)... These are quotes by Founding Fathers on the importance of morality and religion IN GOVERNMENT!

quote:

---

Holmes:
Clap clap clap... bravo! You set a perfect example of citing revisionist literature, complete with quote mining in order to make their point.
Your link did NOT include quotes by more important Founding Fathers which said quite the reverse of people like Ames, not to mention contrary quotes from some of the Founding Fathers they did quote. I will be happy to start posting contrary quotes if you wish...
For example you quote Ames to say:
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty."

​

To which you say:
"Wow, he was a prophet! Evidently the liberty so many have in mind today was not the liberty the Founding Fathers had in mind. Homosexuality is guaranteed by the constitution - what a bunch of baloney! Only by a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution."

​

quote:

---

Yet another founding father has quite the opposite assessment and warning:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788.

---

​

Whose takes precedent? And do you really believe Ames's critique to be true?

---

TJ replies:
Well, yes, I do believe that Ame's critique is true. It is the whole reason we need laws in this land. If everyone could be trusted to live moral and upright lives of their own accord, we wouldn't need any laws now would we? Wouldn't that be wonderful? Policemen and lawyers would almost be put out of business! But, the fact that we need more and more laws, more and more policemen, and more and more prisons, shows that we don't have the ability to police ourselves or to control ourselves. We have a natural propensity for wrongdoing and laws are necessary to preserve order in society.
Jefferson is also right. The less the government infringes on our lives the better. Big is not better when it comes to government. The less things we have to regulate and oversea, the better. That is why we are a Republic and that is also why Jefferson along with many others wanted to leave control up to the States as much as possible. That included control of religion. He wasn't against religion at all, he just wanted it to be dealt with on the state level.But Ames is talking more about the area of morality I think. We are free in this country but that freedom needs to be used wisely and not abused. We do not have freedom to do whatever we want to. All laws limit our freedom and this is very much in harmony with the constitution.Our Constitution begins "We the people" This is indicative of how we are to make laws in our land. This is "a title that sets forth its fundamental premise - a premise that was first established in the Declaration of Independence: "the consent of the governed." The fact that the people, collectively, were the source of all authority was such a self-evident truth that constitutional expert George Washington emphatically declared:
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins requires that the will of the majority shall prevail.
Jefferson, a member of a political party often opposing Washington's views, agreed with this position, similarly declaring:
The will of the majority is the natural law of every society and is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; and the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect.
While the minority is not to prevail over the majority, the minority, with its constitutional guarantee of "free speech," does have the equal right to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view (or portions of its views). However, Equal right" is not the same as "Equal power." The minority is never the equivalent of the majority and is never to exercise control over it.
The majority's power is not without its own limitations, however; it is absolutely restricted in that it may not enact a policy that violates a clear, explicit, enumerated provision of the Constitution (e.g., a majority "no matter how large" could not vote to abridge free speech, or to ban trial by jury, or to re-institute slavery, or to raise the voting age back to 21, etc., without first amending the Constitution itself ); but in all other instances not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the voice of the majority is the final word."While the majority may sometimes err, as Jefferson observed, when it does, "its errors are honest, solitary, and short-lived."
The Courts, too, will also sometimes err; after all, they are made up of individuals just as fallible as those in any majority. As Thomas Jefferson correctly observed:
Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . But their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible - as the other functionaries are - to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
However, the difference between courts and majorities is that errors by the majority are usually short-lived while errors by the Court are usually more severe and long-lasting....Greater confidence should be placed in a larger body of elected individuals to self-correct and reverse more quickly than a smaller body of unelected individuals - that is, the 535 in Congress - can more promptly correct a bad federal law they previously passed than the 9 in the Supreme Court can correct a bad decision they previously made."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/...2-102/02-102.mer.ami.lc.pdfNow we will argue about whether this gay rights thing is a case that the minority should prevail, but the general principle is that the majority should prevail. That is how our government works. As I mentioned earlier, we are a Republic, not a democracy. In a republic, decisions are left up to the States as much as possible.Jefferson and his Jeffersonian Republicans and even Madison came very close to arguing that not the Supreme Court, but state legislatures had the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution.
(Government By The People by Burns, Peltasin, and Cronin 12th ed. 1984. pg. 25)Whose opinion should be listened to? Ame's opinion or Jefferson's opinion? Well, actually I'm not sure that they really conflict. Jefferson wasn't against legislating morality. I don't know what gives you that idea. In fact, look at this quote by Jefferson which you posted:"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness),"Although I wouldn't agree with him, he himself called himself a Christian. His view on matters of religion was simply to leave it to the States, not oppose it, restrict it, or ban it. Plus I really don't think you want to go there. The Christians far far outnumber the Deists among the Founding Fathers. And yes I know the difference, but perhaps you need a refresher course.Even though he called himself a Christian, I agree that Jefferson was not a Christian because he didn't even believe that Jesus was God. Franklin called himself a "deist" but even he believed in a God who intervened in the affairs of men and he influenced the Founders to re-institute prayer before their meetings, so he wasn't against religion mixing with government. In fact, sometimes the prayer meetings(that he encouraged) that the Founders had when they were debating the Constitution lasted an hour or two!Oh oh, call the ACLU and arrest those men!Here is what happened:Benjamin Franklin was part of the Constitutional Convention, and the records of that Constitutional Convention were really given us by a number of Founding Fathers who were all writers. But perhaps the best records come from James Madison. James Madison kept meticulous notes on what went on in the Convention. Now, others kept notes as well: Jonathan Dayton and Robert Yates and others.
But James Madison records a very famous speech given by Benjamin Franklin. This is probably the most famous speech of Franklin's political career. It came on Thursday, June 28, 1787. In that particular speech recorded by Madison, the Convention was really at a crossroads, for the Convention was falling apart. They had argued; they had fought; they had bickered. They could not agree on anything, and so even the New York delegation had left and gone home in disgust saying, "We have better things to do than fight with you."
It was seeing the Convention crumble that brought Franklin to this point of making this speech. For here he was, 81 years old. He was in very poor health. He is the patriarch of this Convention. He's the "old man" himself, the old sage, the wise man. And he was in such poor health they literally had to carry him in and off of the Convention floor. But he rose and reminded the delegates of something that they used to do in that very room. Here they were, up against difficult problems they were not able to resolve and he said, "Do you remember what we used to do here 13 years ago?" For it was in that very room that they had had the very first sessions of Congress, and Franklin had been a member of those first sessions of Congress.

​

And the records of Congress indicate that they prayed faithfully every morning, every day, and sometimes in multi-hour prayer sessions.

​

And Franklin remembered that and he said, "Have you noted that we have not yet started this Convention asking God for help? We have gone for days, for weeks and we have not even solicited His aid. And really, we had become fairly presumptuous because we'd seen God's direct intervention so often in the American Revolution that we had just assumed that He was on our side."
But it was Franklin that brought these delegates back to their senses. He told them, "In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. "Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent incidences of a superintending Providence in our favor." And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We've been assured in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

Now, here is a Founding Father, admittedly one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers, calling the entire group back to prayer at the Constitutional Convention. He said, "This was a near fatal mistake. We have not yet asked for God's assistance."

"I am firmly convinced that if we don't get God's aid, we're going to end up just like the Tower of Babel. We can never survive without God's assistance." said Franklin.

He said, "Let's get serious about this," and he made a motion. He said, "I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."
Now, this is the speech that led to the establishment of chaplains in the House and the Senate. They knew that this was so important that they must never again forget it. And so chaplains in the House and Senate were not allowed to be members of Congress who might be distracted by their duties and jobs and requirements. No, these were to be people whose only purpose was to get these Congressmen, to get the Congress of the United States, before God every morning before they went off to business.
Page Not Found - JA ShowQuite interesting isn't it? But wait, there is more.
Jonathan Dayton writes about what happened after Franklin's speech. There were many that wrote about it, but Dayton noted that for the next three days the Constitutional Convention en masse went as a group fasting and praying and visiting every church they could find in Philadelphia. The entire Constitutional Convention en masse went from church to church to church, sat down inside, brought the minister out and said, "Preach to us. We need to get our mind renewed. We need to get our thinking turned around." For three days the Constitutional Convention en masse as a single body went from church to church listening to sermons. Imagine that! While they were dealing with the Constitution they took out 3 days to seek God. We are fortunate the ACLU was not yet in existence then, or our country may not exist today in it's present form.
When they reconvened, Jonathan Dayton said, "It was the first time in six weeks that every unfriendly feeling had been expelled. It was the first time in six weeks that we weren't fighting and arguing and bickering. We actually got along."
You see, for five and a half weeks they could get nothing accomplished, then they seriously set their mind toward seeking God for three days as the Constitutional Convention and after that point the delegates said, "This was the turning point. That speech by Franklin calling us back to prayer was the turning point." And it is amazing that prior to that point they could agree to nothing and after that point they came up with a document that has now lasted 200 years. You see, the delegates themselves pointed to that speech by Franklin calling for prayer as the proof that that was the turning point of the Convention.Page Not Found - JA ShowSo you have Jefferson and maybe Franklin who were Deists, but out of the 55 signers, the vast majority were true Christians. Jefferson himself said the majority wins. Most revisionists quote extensively from Jefferson and Madison, and sometimes Franklin. I'm most familiar with these three, but there may have been some others as well. However, that is the extent of your quote base. Three men give or take. Quite limited wouldn't you say? Hard to say their opinions are representative of the Founders isn't it?
So it doesn't come down to Jefferson vs. Ames anyway. Jefferson and company were far out-numbered.http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...

quote:

---

What kind of license was he(Ames) and many against, and would you agree with them all?

​

For example many believed ending slavery was a form of license, the practice of which is clearly supported in the Bible. Same goes for not allowing women rights to vote.

---

TJ replies:
Holmes, can you give me concrete quotes from many of the Founding Fathers to back up what you are saying here? Please show me that "MANY believed that ending slavery was a form of license." Thanks.It is hard to answer that question from that one particular quote, but if you were to read Jefferson's writings, I'm sure you would find out more specifically what he is talking about. It is true that in the OT, slavery was regulated by laws. The slavery permitted in the Bible did not allow for mistreating of slaves. Certainly Jewish slaves had it easier than foreigners, but even being a foreign slave in a Jewish household had real benefits. These slaves would be able to learn about God and indeed numbers of foreigners did become followers of God and were included in His covenant people. If slaves ran away from their masters, the Jews were told not to return him to his master but to take care of him and give him his freedom. Very different from the kind of slavery that was practiced by many in our country. Here is a rather lengthy article on slavery in the Bible and the Founder's ideas about slavery which might help clear up some of the confusion on their views. http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that the Bible says that women are not allowed to vote. I never read that verse. I have read verses that say that in Christ there is neither male nor female, meaning that we are all equal. That doesn't mean that we don't have different God-given roles, but fundamentally we are all equal in God's eyes.

quote:

---

There were also prohibitions against nudism, fornication, masturbation, adultery, divorce, etc etc. Which practice is license and which is liberty? Is that for YOU to decide, or YOUR Bible? Or Ames's Bible?

---

TJ replies: Well no, God has already decided. Masturbation is the only one in that list that would be debated in this society among believers. Lust is prohibited though so if lust accompanies masturbation, it would definitely be wrong. Ames' Bible and my Bible are the same so I don't understand your question. But other than that, my personal feeling is that these practices are license and that they do not help or benefit society at all. Perhaps you feel they are good for society, I don't know. If you think so, I'd like to know why.Most, if not all of these, were actually against the law in most States when the Constitution was written, so yes, it would seem that the Founding Fathers viewed these as licentious or immoral acts. I would venture to say that your heroes Jefferson and Franklin felt the same as well. I need to find documentation on that though.Here is one though from Jefferson which seems to support this: (See the records recently reprinted by James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, Washington Parish, Washington City,Eby Rev. Ethan Allen.) As quoted in David Barton's Original Intent.

quote:

---

Holmes: In addition to its other problems the link you cited was also quite disingenuous as it had many quotes discussing "virtue" and pretending if that means Xian morals, instead of civic virtues which was about how people treated each other.

---

TJ replies: Holmes, just how do YOU know that the virtues mentioned were not indeed Christian virtues as opposed to what you call civic virtues? Support that statement please. Rather than read today's interpretation into that word, why not go back to the ideas, writings, views, and laws established by the Founders to answer that question? Even that last quote by your hero Jefferson would seem to support my interpretation of the word "virtue."Go back to that article on how the 10 Commandments - all 10 of them - have been the basis for so many of our laws. Reread that and see if you still think your statement is accurate.Here is just one quote from that article on blasphemy: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...
34. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:"The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of REVEALED RELIGION are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law."(My words here: You have to remember Holmes that the word "religion" was most often used by the Fathers to refer to Christianity itself and the idea that these moral principles were REVEALED shows that they viewed them as coming from God.)The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:"The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "devise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . ." He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law."Read that article Holmes and you have an awful lot of explaining to do in order to support your thesis that the virtues they mention were not fundamentally Christian and did not have their origin in the Bible. Many have stated the exact opposite including the Supreme Court. This is only one example of many I could cite.In 1844 there was a school in Philadelphia that said, "We are going to teach our students morality, but we are not going to teach Christian principles at this school. We will not teach the Bible here at this school but we will teach morality." Now, this case made the Court because this school was receiving government funds. They said in court, "Now wait a minute. If you don't want to teach the Bible and Christianity, that's fine. You're just got to go be a private school." They said, "But if you're going to receive the government funds, if you're going to be a government public school, you're got to teach the Bible and Christianity in your school." This is a Supreme Court case. Now, two years later the Court very clearly explained why Christian principles were to be the basis of society. (My insert here: In today's society, this is not politically correct, but it is what they believed and it is not a violation of the Constitution. The rise in divorce, sexual immorality, sexually transmitted disease, crime, etc. since the removal of pray and the Bible from school and the sexual revolution of the 60's would seem to validate their ideas.)And then in 1952 the Court continued to stay in that very same vein. In a case called "Zorach v. Clauson" the Court said this: "When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public school events to meet denominational or sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions." The Court said, "We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence." Wow! This is what is really meant by separation of Church and State. The Church is to be protected by the government, not violated, restricted, and discouraged.This was in 1952, and yet our policies now do exactly what they said cannot happen! Witness the effort to remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge of allegiance simply because a few atheists claim to be offended. Or the fact that our policies now say, "No, we cannot have prayer in a public arena because that would offend those who don't like prayer." So now we prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do - the minority over the majority. Thomas Jefferson certainly would not approve of that. Whatever happened to true religious freedom?It's a very simple problem: you will either have prayer or you won't have prayer. One group will win, the other group won't. Right now the group that's winning is those that believe in no religion. And as long ago as 1952, just a few decades ago, we said that would never happen in America.
Page Not Found - JA ShowBenjamin Rush, another Founding Father, signer of the Declaration of Independence and who served in the administrations of three presidents (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams), wrote that if the Bible is ever removed from the schools, we would suffer from an explosion of crime! Spoken two centuries ago, Rush was amazingly prophetic. In our day, God, the Bible and prayer have been replaced in our schools with handguns, drugs and condoms. I wonder, has there been an increase in crime since the decision to ban the Bible? I'm sure there are other factors involved as well, but that has had a negative influence on kids I'm sure. The problem is that when you throw out the Bible, yes, you can get rid of those pesky laws that make you feel guilty, but you also lose the blessings and protections that God has built into His law. The further we go astray from His laws, the more we reap the consequences. Our nation's journey away from God does have negative consequences. Even Nietzsche predicted that the 20th century would be one of the bloodiest ever because more and more people were coming to believe that God was dead. That belief does free us up to do what previously we may have had moral convictions about.

quote:

---

I can just as easily find counter quotes and will start with just a few from just ONE of the Founding Fathers. But in addition to these quotes check out the treaty of 1797 with Tripoli. It states quite clearly that the US government is not founded on Xianity. No matter what personal beliefs they personally felt should be utmost in the minds of men, they did not believe it should be utmost in the practice of gov't.

---

TJ replies: OK, this is a famous one, but it is always quoted out of context in order to support what they want it to say. Dishonest if you ask me. Here is the background on that quote for those interested: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...Now, here is some fun reading for you to show the opposite:
The journals of Congress themselves indicate many records that the Founding Fathers had strongly Christian notions of what they wanted in the nation as seen in their days of prayer and thanksgiving and in their proclamations for prayer and fasting.For example, just a matter of a few weeks before they signed the Declaration of Independence, their final plea for reconciliation with Great Britain had been rejected by King George III. And so now they knew they must go to war. There's no resolving the differences. So, understanding that the nation would soon be at war Congress met; they called for a national day of prayer and fasting, knowing that if we expected to have God's blessings on the nation, we'x better make sure we were right with God before we went in.Look at this proclamation given on May 16, 1776 by our Founding Fathers. This is what they asked the nation to do: Now, that's not a bland declaration by the Founding Fathers. They said, "We need to get hold of Jesus and make sure that we have a changed life; make sure that we get His pardon and His forgiveness. We need His help before we go to war." That's what Congress called the nation to pray and do before we entered into the Declaration of Independence.Then after Benedict Arnold's treason attempt was discovered, Washington believing that God had intervened on behalf of the nation, reported this to the congress and this was their incredible response:When Congress got that report, they responded and they called for a day of national prayer and thanksgiving and they detailed to the nation on October 18, 1780 all the specifics that God had done in intervening to discover that treason attempt. (Journals of Congress(1910), Vol. XVIII, pp. 950-951, Oct. 18, 1780)And they called the nation to do two things: "Number one, we want you to stop and thank God that again. He'd intervened in our behalf, showing that we're the object of His Divine love; and, two, we have a prayer request for you." Now they said, "First off, we want to call a day of public thanksgiving and prayer so that all the people may assemble on that date to celebrate the praises of our Divine Benefactor" and they listed all the things that had happened, how God had discovered that plan, they felt. And then they said, "This is a second request we have.

We want to confess our unworthiness of the least of these His favors and we want to offer our supplications to the God of all grace so that we can cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth."

Page Not Found - JA ShowHolmes, to me, the prayers the Congress asked people to pray tells us a lot about what they believed as well. This is another reason I believe that our Founding Fathers intended Christian principles to be the center of this nation.At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers found themselves in a dilemma. With the Declaration they had wiped out every government they had formerly had because all the governments had been appointed by Great Britain. So now they're faced with the task of replacing them with their own creations. And so when these men returned to their own home states, look at what our Founding Fathers put in their original constitutions, the ones they originally penned in 1776.Delaware, for example,- and this is written by signers Thomas McKean and George Read - had this requirement for holding public office in it's State Constitution. It shows the great respect they had for Christians back then.Now, those are qualifications for the individuals in office. The same was seen in North Carolina as all the other states throughout the 13 colonies. Now, they understood that these basic Christian principles were what produced good government. As Daniel Webster(oh my goodness, still another Christian Founding Father? Will they never go away?) said, "Whatever makes men good Christians makes them good citizens." And they knew that these Christian principles produced good citizens and so that's the requirements they had [to meet] in order to hold office. Just as they said you had to be 18, you had to reside in your home state, this was a requirement for being qualified for office.
Page Not Found - JA ShowThere was a case that came to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892, a case called "Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States." At issue in this case was the hiring of a minister. Someone had challenged the fact that a Christian minister was being hired in America. And the Court in itself thought that was ludicrous that anything Christian should be challenged in America and so they went into an explanation of why it was absolutely absurd to challenge Christian principles in America.We understand that when the Court does a decision, it goes back through history; it goes back through law; it goes through previous precedents; it tries to arrive at some strong conclusion, and that's what the U.S. Supreme Court did in this case. Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. 470,471 (1892) Now, what would have led the Court to such an emphatic declaration: that our laws, our institutions, our society was emphatically Christian and that it must include the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind? Well, the Court said the reason we say this is because it's historically true. They said, "From the discovery of the continent to this present hour there is a single voice everywhere making the same affirmation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of this truth." Holmes, if you had attended school prior to World War II, you would have known of many of these 87 precedents. You could have read them in most any textbook. But you are excused for not knowing that because they have since been conveniently removed and hushed up. Now most students never see any of these 87 reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court cited as the emphatic basis for their Declaration that we are a Christian nation; that Christian principles are to remain the basis of this society. Is it just me, or could there be some revision going on here?
Page Not Found - JA ShowIf you want to read about some of the reasons they cited in making this judgment, check out these links that deal with the early constitutions created here, the land charters of all the early colonies that tell why they came to the new world, etc. But if the name of Jesus scares you or offends you, you might just want to skip reading these links. I'll give just one example of an official government document, the one created when three of the largest colonies got together and created a constitution: Now, here is another official government document that said, "We're come here to propagate the Gospel of Jesus." It says, "as a matter of fact, we're all here for the same purpose, so why don't we have a joint government and cooperate in that?" And thus they did.
Page Not Found - JA ShowPage Not Found - JA ShowRead those links and I can easily understand why some say that the US was not a Christian nation. Impossible! I mean come on, who in their right mind would ever think such a thing?! You are going to need a lot of quotes to the contrary to convince me otherwise.Here is a link that tells us what George Washington said in his famous Farewell Address. Well it used to be famous until it suddenly disappeared from our textbooks after WW II.
He gave 12 warnings in this speech and four of them were religious in nature. (Oh my! Strike that from the record. Can't allow our students to know that he was a Christian and lose all respect for him. Thank God for the ACLU police. Oops. I meant thank goodness, not thank God.) One of his warnings said, "There are only two supports for political prosperity in America. That's religion and morality." He said, therefore, don't let anyone claim to be a true American patriot if they ever try to separate religion and morality from politics. That's a strong statement. He said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars."In other words, according to Washington, if you try to separate religion and morality from politics, you can't be called an American patriot. (HOW DARE HE SAY SUCH A THING?!
Page Not Found - JA ShowAnd Holmes, you wouldn't be thinking of claiming that Washington was not referring to Christianity here I hope.) Just in case you might want to pursue that line of reasoning, read this:"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."(Washington, Writings(1923), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.) as quoted in Barton pg. 168.We'll I'll be! George was a Jesus freak! Can you believe it?!And in this next quote, Washington attacks the popular idea that you can be moral without religion. (George Washington, Address of George Washingotn, President of the United States...Preparatory to His Declination(Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge,1796) ppl 22,23, as quoted on pg. 117 in Barton.)
(FOUL! FOUL! EJECT THAT INTOLERANT GOOF! NOW HE's ATTACKING HUMANISM!) Page Not Found - JA Show

quote:

---

HOLMES:
Okay, here is an interesting (and small) collection of quotes by Jefferson which appear to counter your site's assertions regarding what our Founding Fathers had intended for our nation...

---

TJ replies: So Holmes, are you trying to imply that Jefferson gets to speak for the whole Supreme Court, all the Founding Fathers, all the early charters and constitutions of the colonies, all the laws of the individual states, etc. Personally, I put more weight with the weightier evidence. But maybe I'm just bias.

quote:

---

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:135

---

TJ: OK, your point is?

quote:

---

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

---

TJ: He also said as I pointed out earlier that it is impossible to keep everyone happy. He understands that there are times we cannot protect everyone's rights. On average, the majority rules.Jefferson:
"All religions are equally independent here, our laws knowing no distinction of country, of classes among individuals and with nations, our [creed] is justice and reciprocity." --Thomas Jefferson to the Emperor of Morocco, 1803. ME 19:136TJ: Yes, all religions are equally independent, but that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers thought that all religions were of equally valid and meaningful. Even Jefferson thought that Christianity was the best religion. Remember that quotation from Jefferson I posted earlier?"The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.EOthers said the same thing:
This is a Supreme Court case from 1799, right there with the Founding Fathers. Look what the Court says. That's the true intent of the First Amendment. Christian principles? Yes. But we're not going to have one national denomination. That's why they wanted biblical principles taught in schools, in education throughout; but they would not allow the teaching of one set of denominational beliefs. And the Founding Fathers were very avid denominational people. They had very strong beliefs in their own denominations. But never once will you find that in the government documents. That is what Jefferson addressed in his infamous wall of separation of church and state letter to the Danbury Baptists.Basic Christian principles, yes. And that's what they wanted, that's what they included, and the things that you'll find included in their writings are the things on which every Christian denomination agrees and that's why they're considered orthodox Christian principles and those are the principles the Founding Fathers wanted in government.
Page Not Found - JA Show

quote:

---

Holmes:
"The laws... which must effect [a people's happiness] must flow from their own habits, their own feelings, and the resources of their own minds. No stranger to these could possibly propose regulations adapted to them. Every people have their own particular habits, ways of thinking, manners, etc., which have grown up with them from their infancy, are become a part of their nature, and to which the regulations which are to make them happy must be accommodated." --Thomas Jefferson to William Lee, 1817. ME 15:101

---

TJ: OK, interesting quote. He is advocating majority rule here isn's he? Perhaps he and I would have a differing understanding of what is necessary to make us happy, but he is entitled to his opinion. I believe that moral living is necessary for happiness in the same way that rules and boundaries are necessary to have a fun and safe soccer game. Too much of a good thing, like freedom for instance, is usually not a good thing, because we don't know how to use our freedom responsibly.Jefferson also this about the source of America's inalienable rights: Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237 as quoted in Barton, pg. 46.)Evidently, Holmes, he wouldn't feel the nations liberties were safe, he wouldn't be comfortable with folk who do not recognize the source of our liberties as being God.(I hope I didn't already quote this befores. Apologies if I did, but anyway, it applies here too.)

quote:

---

Holmes:
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality." --Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, 1809. ME 12:315

---

TJ: If you agree with this, I suppose you would be against homosexual marriage then, right?
Of course, since that is one of those moral precepts on which all religions agree. Thanks for this quote Holmes!You do realize don't you, that Jefferson is saying here that it is OK to legislate some morality, right? Uh oh, quick, erase mode! Scrap this quote and on to the next!!By the way, again here you have to understand what Jefferson means here when he uses the term "religions" He is referring to all the different sects in Christianity that existed in the country.For instance, in the 1853-1854 House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports, we find this paragraph:"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignationEIt (religion) must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. En this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.E(Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Second Congress(Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1, 6,8-9)

quote:

---

Holmes:
"No one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

---

TJ: If you are trying to claim that homosexuality is a genetic thing, proof please.

quote:

---

Holmes:
Jefferson also had some assessments and warnings that perhaps seem more apt and prophetic than Ames' given today's events...

​

"I have never dreamed that all opposition was to cease. The clergy, who have missed their union with the State, the Anglomen, who have missed their union with England, and the political adventurers, who have lost the chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, will never cease to bawl on the breaking up of their sanctuary." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801. ME 10:259

---

TJ: Not sure exactly what he is saying here. Did you quote this simply because he is speaking negatively of some clergy here? Sorry, I don't see how it relates. Are you trying to say that TJ hated all clergy? It would seem that at best, he had a beef with some clergy, but he defines exactly who they are here. To take this statement and say he felt like that about all clergy would be unfair to him.

quote:

---

Holmes:
And especially...
"If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong... into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:29

---

TJ: Good quote! I agree. Your point is what? Are you trying to say that Jefferson was a homosexual rights activist? Far from it! He would be on Bush's side today. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia(Philadelphia:Matthew Carey, 1794), p. 211, Query XIV.( (As quoted in Original Intent by David Barton, pg.67))Wow! EHolmes, can you believe it? Good Ole' Jefferson himself was a BIGOT just like me!!! Shocking, isn't it! And he, along with the other bigots, were the ones who wrote the Constitution! My goodness, I'm almost ashamed to be an American when I hear things like that!Forget it Holmes, revisionism is your only hope!

quote:

---

Holmes:
Kerry might think about adding that to any of his speeches during the election campaign. Very fitting.
But I think you may have accidentally raised an interesting point... Given the numerous views, sometimes abhorrent personal views our Founding Fathers held, who cares what they said?

---

TJ: Well, Holmes, for one, it seems that your hero, Thomas Jefferson, cares.Here is an admonishment he gave to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson:
"In every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.E(Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV, p. 373 to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823. (As quoted in Original Intent by David Barton, pg.23.And not surprisingly, he wasn't alone in this point of view. So, even though the views you are espousing go against the founder's ideas and therefore the Constitution itself, you are OK with it, aren't you? Revisionism is the only option you are left with.And if that is the case, then so be it? No, not at all, but unfortunately that is the path the courts are taking these days. So we say to the Founding Fathers "Thank you very much for the wonderful constitution you gave us, but actually we don't think it is so wonderful. We need to change it."(not meaning amend it, but rather re-interpret it to fit our current ideas).Now tell me. How does that differ from amending the Constitution? In fact, amending the constitution to hold us to the original intent of the founders is much more understandable I would think. Isn't changing it to mean what you want it to mean even more of an insult to the founders and the Constitution itself? Changing the Constitution by slickly re-interpreting it means that the Constitution has no meaning. In other words we can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we want to literally adhere to. If we don't like it, just re-interpret it to say what we want it to mean. How convenient! But at the same time, how dangerous! If we are really allowed to do that, what guarantee do we have that our freedoms and our rights will never be taken away from us? How will people want to change the Constitution in the future? If we allow this, we make the Constitution essentially a meaningless document.

quote:

---

Holmes: Let's say for sake of argument that the Founding Fathers were all fundamentalist Xians who had NO intention of any other religion existing within society. Have we then not outgrown this shackle as we have racism, sexism, and slavery?
Or if not, perhaps this suggests it is high time for those who have moved on intellectually to form a new revolution and a new Constitution and a new government which does not allow religious zealots to rule over everyone else just because of the demographical makeup of the Founding Fathers looks more like them.
Perhaps we can form a new nation based on a recognition of our strength in diversity.

---

TJ replies:
It has never worked before, but since when has that stopped anyone from trying? Good luck.I agree with you in that I don't believe the Founding Fathers were all fundamentalist Christians who had no intention of any other religion existing within society, but it is also clear that they never wanted government to get away from the Biblical principles upon which it was founded. They found it worked best. Just like children need guidelines, so do we, and they knew that. There are times when we don't know how to handle our freedom and that freedom needs to be curtailed for our own good and the good of society.Homes, at least give the Founding Fathers enough respect to interpret their writings properly. If you say "Who cares?" then so be it, but enough of this revisionism stuff!And may I say that I agree with Jefferson. I think it very much does matter what the original intent was. They certainly all thought it mattered, which is why they labored over the document and it's wording for such a long time trying to get it just right. It is why they took meticulous notes of all their discussions so that we can see what it was they discussed and really believed. Was that labor all in vain? If we can re-interpret it to mean anything we want, then evidently it was? Why did they even bother?I am accused of literalism when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I freely admit that I am guilty as charged along with all the Founding Fathers who worked so hard so that future generations would be able to accurately understand the Constitution.Regards,TJ

Crash,Yes, I apologize for the large posts. I've been working on them for a while. To be honest, I'm not sure how long I can keep this up. Take all the time you need.TJ