niftydrifty

all of your "evidence" is words from the founders speaking personally. I've tossed out just as many quotes that show otherwise. so what we have here, if anything, is that the founders had varying personal opinions about Christianity. however, they were of one mind regarding the role religion should play in government. fluffy, all of your quotes are personal statements. what happens when the founders actually do discuss the role of religion in government? it sounds like this:

the word you used was "vague." the word I used was "clear." which one do I mean? guess.

go for it. but be sure to only include quotes about what role religion should play in the future government of the US.

the treaty was written while Washington was president, and signed by the next President of the United States, John Adams, ten years after the Constitution was adopted. the treaty was ratified by the congress of the United States. the congress of the United States, in 1797, by a 2/3rds majority. according to you, this is stretching it, but I suppose a document from a colony in 1600-something isn't? cmon.

while you're imagining things, I'd prefer to stick to the facts. you must dream up hypotheticals when none of the evidence supports your conclusion.
what does this have to do with the role of religion in government?

what quotes that you have posted deal specifically with the role religion should play in the future government of the United States? zero.

The topic is "US," not "S".

here's Madison on that very subject, the "father" of the Constitution:

James Madison disagrees with you.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

tryreading

I wouldn't use the Franklin quotes from the Convention if I were you. They don't support your argument at all.

Franklin suggested they pray or have somebody pray over them every day, but, interestingly, the Convention had already been in progress for several weeks with no prayer, and nobody really cared.

And you know what came of his idea? Nothing. There was almost no interest. The proceedings were adjourned for the day without any action, and the next day the Convention resumed as if Franklin never spoke.

FluffyNinja

And all of the quotes you posted originally were the same - except mine were actually cited or at least dated with the actual context of the quote listed.





Actually, in one instance you said the constitution was "quite clear" and "clear on this subject" and in the next instance you said that it "doesn't have to be written" in the document. I'm just having trouble understanding how the Founders' intent could be so CLEAR when it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WRITTEN? Even to the simple-minded, like myself, this seems somewhat contradictary.

Why should I adhere to your blatant double-standard? Your previous quotes were not limited to ONLY arguments about the role religion should play in the future government.

So, according to your own rules of debate, what does this treaty have to do with the role religion should play in our FUTURE government which had already been formed and ratified by 1797?

This is what you said:So I'm not allowed to make a hypothetical statement, but you can make a claim such as this and declare that you only "stick to facts." I don't know how you can derive "fact" from what YOU believe the intentions of 55 men who lived over two-hundred years ago were?


John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

Benjamin Franklin:
“ 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 have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses


John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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 a gift from 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, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

James Madison:
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]


Yes, but perhaps you should "brush-up" on your Colonial History. From 1776 to 1789 (and in some cases long after) many of the colonies refused to give up what they believed to be their "sovereignty." For many colonists, their state constitutions carried more "weight" than the US Constitution. I'm sure that you are aware the new Constitution was met with bitter opposition in many colonies and certainly was not "welcomed with open arms" by all.

:
James Madison:
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
Well. here's another quote by the very same man - again, I've provide a date and frame of reference.


Apparently, not always!

__________________
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask, "Where's my government handout?"

The silenced majority

...just to add a little bit to the discussion.

The Avalon Project : Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776
The Avalon Project : Constitution of Delaware; 1776
The Avalon Project : Constitution of North Carolina : December 18, 1776
The Avalon Project : Constitution of South Carolina - March 19, 1778
The Avalon Project : Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”. ~ Samuel Adams

Mach

No, it would not.

Star Wars is a work of art. Art is often intentionally left to the viewer to decide what it is and what it means to them. An artist declaring precisely what their art is "supposed" to mean, is just as irrelevant as NCFY you points out. Worse, it's pretty silly. Lucas can do what he likes, but it doesn't change the way viewer interpret his work. Look at what he did to Han Solo and Greedo. He tried to change it, because he's an idiot, and the viewers of his art didn't agree with him.

The consitution is what it is. It excludes religion from government. There were secular people involved in it's creation, and christian. And none of that is really relevant.
Nothing more really need be said, no christianity in the government, is what it is.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

FluffyNinja

Okay, first of all, I'm the biggest Lucas and StarWars fan imagineable - the original movie may be the greatest of all time, but the BOOK, a WORK of ART? Somehow, I don't ever see Star Wars: A New Hope, which was written as a screenplay, ever being ranked up there with the Literary Masters like Chaucer, Hemingway, Faulkner, Twain, Homer, Dante or even Tolkien and Aasimov. And I suppose the millions of hours and billions of $$ that have been spent in our Elementary, Secondary and college English/Literature classes trying to get students to determine the authors' POINTS OF VIEW has been a waste. Your assertion is absurd. EVERY writer has a REASON behind what he/she writes - or he/she wouldn't have written it in the first place. So what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the author's REASON for writing something does not matter at all? Man, I hope you never get a job teaching a Literature class.

Mach

I think you need to read more.
Film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form,

I don't believe you understand what the difference is.

If a George Lucas wanted to get laid, rich, and famous, and to that end, wrote a series of movies, these things have nothing to with the story as written. They are irrelevant, as NCFY you pointed out earlier, and as I just pointed out. Did Solo shoot Greedo? Yes or no. As you can see, the answer lies within the story, not in George Lucas' toilet. We can ask George why he wrote the stories, but this is just as irrelevant as his toilet with respect to whether or not Greedo was killed by the quicker Solo.

-Mach

FluffyNinja

I'm not talking about the FILM. I'm talking about the BOOK (screenplay).
Last time I checked the Constitution was a written document, not a film production. Producing a movie from a written manuscript is quite a bit different from writing a book. Before the entire series "played out" did we wonder WHY Lucas began with Episode IV? Did we ponder HIS INENTIONS in beginning the story in the middle? (Before he told us - that is) Sure we did! And this is the way we should approach all articles, novels, historical documents, manuscripts, research papers or journals - we should attempt to identify the author's purpose, point of view. and the context in which it was written. Then after reaching those conclusions, we can proceed to critique the writer on how well he achieved his objectives or we may offer our own interpretation of the text based on relevant content.

This is Literature 101. I'm a History teacher, I'm not supposed to be giving out elementary lessons on literary interpretation. Go pick up a high school Language Text or an MLA Guide and start reading.

tryreading

The Establishment Clause was explained very clearly by President Jefferson in 1802 using the very words you quote above, 'separation of church and state...'

Jefferson explained to his Attorney General the point he was making to the country in his response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists. Here's his note to Lincoln regarding the letter and the purpose of it:


Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, January 1, 1802

Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths & principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.

The address, to be sure, does not point at this, & it's introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offence to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect, or promote a good one among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs: it is at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address, in the course of the day or evening. Health & affection.

American Memory from the Library of Congress))
The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827

FluffyNinja

First off, Jefferson's interpretation of the Establishment Clause IS important; however, he was not the sole author of the First Amendment.

Secondly, the context of the letter is that Jefferson was addressing the concerns of some clergymen that the Federal Government would have the power to interfere with religious practices ( which, thanks to a few activist justices - they do - how is it that the government can prevent bible study groups, organized prayer and reading of the Bible in Public Schools?) we seem to forget that there's another "religion" clause in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law...........prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This one's called the Free Exercise Clause and for some reason, doesn't get as much attention as its counterpart. Jeffersons "wall of separation" quote was simply a metaphor used to reassure the New England clergy.

Third, it is a fact that three days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property , without government interference.

Fourth, the Establishment clause refers ONLY to LAWS PASSED by CONGRESS. Why is this so often overlooked? How can this be interpreted as the jurisdiction of the Education Department - which is part of the Executive Branch or under the jurisdiction of the states - which are responsible for establishing their own public schools? I still haven't been able to figure that one out.

Anyway, we seem to be digressing into a discussion of Separation of Church and State (which does not legally exist) when my original goal was to discuss the TRUE religious nature of our founding Fathers in an attempt to determine if it was their INTENT for the US to be founded upon Christian Principles. Freedom of Religion makes it possible for us to make the claim that we are a "Christian Nation," if that is TRUE of the majority and that is HOW the majority wishes to be identified. Would you agree that our nation still operates under the principle of "majority rule - minority rights?"