~ Separation of Church and Ignorance ~

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: Amused
There is no such thing as a "one directional" wall. It defies all logic and is just more of David Barton's nonsense (do a google search on this fabricator)... along with his making up of quotes by our founding fathers.

Jefferson meant the wall to be a WALL. Something that blocks intrusion of the church into state matters, and the state into church matters. No matter WHO intrudes, the two become intertwined.

This "one directional" nonsense is history revisionism at it's worst.

How about reading ALL the commentary on the establishment clause, and then forming an opinion in the proper context... hmmm?

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Submitted by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified by Congress.)

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association).

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, :432).

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

There can be no doubt that this wall, is a WALL. Blocking encroachment from BOTH sides. Anything else would be a sieve, not a WALL.

If the church runs the state, the state runs the church and vice versa. You cannot have the encroachment blocked on one side without blocking it from the other.

I'm noticing that the madison quotes (other than the undated one) are 30+ years after the bill of rights was written/passed. I'd be more interested in what he had to say in the times before/during the process.

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: skace

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

For there to be unbias in the upholding of this law, you cannot have your government openly endorcing 1 religion over another.

"We don't have any laws respecting any establishment of religion, but please place your right hand and repeat after me.....".

The real question is, if you would want Buddhism intertwined with your government. See, I always see these arguments come up, but they are never made by someone other than a Christian. I never see any Pagans in here asking that the pledge include something about mother nature or whatnot.

The people typically complain because God, etc. is removed from government/public situations. If this were a predominantly muslim country I would expect that to be reflected in the government and just about everything else culture related.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: Amused
There is no such thing as a "one directional" wall. It defies all logic and is just more of David Barton's nonsense (do a google search on this fabricator)... along with his making up of quotes by our founding fathers.

Jefferson meant the wall to be a WALL. Something that blocks intrusion of the church into state matters, and the state into church matters. No matter WHO intrudes, the two become intertwined.

This "one directional" nonsense is history revisionism at it's worst.

How about reading ALL the commentary on the establishment clause, and then forming an opinion in the proper context... hmmm?

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Submitted by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified by Congress.)

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State"
(Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association).

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State"
(James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, :432).

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
(James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
(James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
(James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

There can be no doubt that this wall, is a WALL. Blocking encroachment from BOTH sides. Anything else would be a sieve, not a WALL.

If the church runs the state, the state runs the church and vice versa. You cannot have the encroachment blocked on one side without blocking it from the other.

I'm noticing that the madison quotes (other than the undated one) are 30+ years after the bill of rights was written/passed. I'd be more interested in what he had to say in the times before/during the process.

He was the one who wrote it. He was answering questions as to it's meaning. It matters not when he said it, but that he said it.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
A number of the arguments in the first post are counter-argued at this site.

FeathersMcGraw, thank you for the link. Excellent information you have provided. As you state, a number of the arguments in the quotation of the first post are counter-argued. Thank you for stating that they are "counter-argued". Most would simply supply that link and say "disproved". I am reading those arguments with great interest and appreciate these perspectives you've referenced. It is evident that significant thought and research was performed by those authors as well.

Thus far, I do not find material which dissuades me from maintaining the assertion that quoting "Separation of Church and State" as a direct correlation to the 1st Amendment is anything but a misreading or careless repeating of a misconstrued idea. Not a fundamental underpinning of constitutional privilege as so many tout (their having done so I think, without even having read the 1st Amendment).

In my own search for historical accuracy I've read and with some disdain note that there are a large number of misrepresentations which Right Wing Fundamentalists tend to use (as is investigated by the authors referenced in FeathersMcGraws' link to Counter-arguments) - some of which are referenced further along in the quote of my first post. With further frustration I find that a likewise significant amount of reading can be found by notable authors of the "Left Wing" or "Other" persuasion similarly mis-using historical evidence but because they are in the majority of diplomatic argument there isn't quite the stench sought after in the interest of performing dogmatic vivisection of a reach for higher moral ground.

Skyclad1uhm1 graces us with creative statistics which lends nothing to the credibility of any sort of argument when considering his rebuttal of the "proven authenticity of truth" (which is an aside to the topic of this post and does not address the correlation of Church/State/1st Amendment). Regarding "the book" as being ".0001%" provable is unequivocally in error of even the most marginal semblance of accuracy. I am not describing spiritual significance here but scientific, archeological and historical recognition of evidence validated under the confines of scientific process. These processes employ the criteria of Integrity, Authenticity and Veracity for which little other than factual evidence can withstand.


?Compare the New Testament with some other writings of old. The New Testament was written over a time period of 60 years. We have over 24,000 copies and some of the copies we have are only 25 years removed from the originals! Caesar's work, The Gallic Wars, was written over a 56 year period. We have 10 copies, the closest to the original is 1,000 years removed. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad and there is a 500 year span between the original and oldest existing copy.?

Here is a link to a table regarding authors Pliny the Younger, Caesar, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripedes, Catallus (None of which are contested for authenticity by today?s interests ? they are regarded as historically inarguable references). ~scroll down to view the table.

Accuracy of Bible vs Ancient Books

*Note that I used the above link to reference the table only - being that a nice layout was used for the chart. The same data can be found on a multitude of websites, including those which have nothing to gain through spiritual reverence.

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of the copying of the Old Testament manuscripts simply isn?t aware of how the maintaining was performed. The Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures followed strict rules; some of which are listed below:

? Each copy had to be written in a certain number of columns of 30 letters width and with a certain number of lines to each column.
? Each copy had to be made from a certified original.
?Every letter was copied one at a time from the original. They could not even write one letter from memory.
?The distance between each letter was measured by a single hair or thread.
?Every letter on every page and book was counted against the original. The number of times each letter occurred in the book was counted and compared against the original.
?If one of these rules (and many others) were broken, the entire copy was destroyed.

Furthering the substantiation of historical authenticity would be a ?non-Christian? search on biblical accounts. Typing into Google the words ?non-Christian biblical reference? and you will be met with a host of web pages, links to scientific and archeological findings regarding such noted historical figures such as Josephus, Lucian of Samasata, Pliny, Tacitus, Antipas, Tiberias, Herod, Suetonius, Julias Africanus, Origen among many, many others. These peoples lives do more to substantiate and solidify the person of Jesus and validate historical events than detract from authenticity. Moreover, no one questions the veracity of these figures because we ?know? they existed and that their historical accounts are accurate.

Well, my thinking is that if they are not discredited in their accounts of history and their lives, how is it that we are able to imbue an aire of incredulity toward Biblical perspectives today? There are hundreds of references non-christian which validate biblical historical events, locations and persons. In fact, there is more evidence validating the reciprocity of Biblical Scripture to today?s world than any other documented article of historical significance. The folly of extremist and fanatical Christian forebears aside, it would appear that the only argument against the validity of the Bible is the uninformed one. I say this only as a factual historical perspective, not as a theological quest into spiritual waters.


In Short Skyclad1uhm1, scientific, historical and archeological evidence does more than address statistics and assertions the like of which you espouse. In fact, it refutes it with evidence directly in contrast to what you have stated.

Now, as to the matter of "Fundies screaming about their book" and insisting that it be taught in schools. I don't ascribe to that mentality. I support equal representation or no representation across the board. Unfortunately, we are human beings who have a way of inflecting personal interest into even the most sanitary of environments. Few people, even in the same camp can agree on the length of a thought much less the breadth of what should be or should not. So, to legislate responsibly for all parties concerned is a difficult task, usually bent to the preference of whoever screams the loudest or who carries the fatter wallet.



The orginal intent of this thread was to discuss the relevance of the popular slogan "Separation of Church and State" as it relates to the 1st Amendment. Many people do not realize that those words do not exist therein. I had considered removing the subsequent quotation of biblical reference to keep the thread on topic and not confuse the issue with potentially erroneous "christian" references but there is some excellent interaction being posted here and I very much appreciate the thought that is being put into most of these posts. As time permits I am reading up on the references posted and I am learning quite a bit. Excellent reading.

Thank you - to those of you who read this thread and recognize the value in considerate discussion.

-Sketcher

 

[KokomoGST]

This is a mostly political issue... should be moved to Politcs forum

 

[Amused]

The phrases, "right to a fair trial" and "right to privacy" and "right to remain silent" (and many more I can't think of on the fly) aren't in the Bill of Rights either... but are logically simplified quotes used to describe the meaning of the Amendments.

"Seperation of church and state" is the phrase used by the Founders themselves to describe how the First Amendment is meant to be interpreted. This seperation is, and always has been intended to go BOTH ways to insure the freedom of the people to practice whatever religion they choose.

What the Christian fanatics do not understand is that if religion runs the state, the state WILL run religion. They cannot be mixed either way without one encroching upon the other. The best ideal then --and the ideal put forth by a majority of our Founding Fathers-- is complete religious neutrality by our government. Nothing else will insure our religious freedoms.

 

[Stark]

sketcher,

I hope you're getting college credit for all the stuff your writing. I'd hate to think your wasting all that brainpower on ATOT. 😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Stark
sketcher,

I hope you're getting college credit for all the stuff your writing. I'd hate to think your wasting all that brainpower on ATOT. 😛

He didn't write it. It was a cut and paste of some very old and thoroughly disproven "Christian Nation" fanatical writing.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stark
sketcher,

I hope you're getting college credit for all the stuff your writing. I'd hate to think your wasting all that brainpower on ATOT. 😛

He didn't write it. It was a cut and paste of some very old and thoroughly disproven "Christian Nation" fanatical writing.

oh, in that case... I really hope he's not turning it in for college credit!

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stark
sketcher,

I hope you're getting college credit for all the stuff your writing. I'd hate to think your wasting all that brainpower on ATOT. 😛

He didn't write it. It was a cut and paste of some very old and thoroughly disproven "Christian Nation" fanatical writing.

Yes, I see the word "fanatical" debunks everything I've written or quoted. Regarding the original post - I don't argue there is some question as to the validity of some of those claims. I'm reading up on it myself and am belaboring the point to read the references which you've provided as quotes in your posts Amused. I've explained my reasoning for leaving it as posted. I've also edited my posts to reflect italic wording for the statments that are not mine. It was never my intention to claim ownership of cut and paste material but to offer up topic for discussion. I state that I will provide quoted references for the points of which I intend to argue so that the references can be followed rather than just my insistence that it exists.

As for "very old and thoroughly disproven", there is some aspect of that in the first post and I admit to there being a measure of questionable content but "thoroughly" would be an inaccurate assessment and "very old" is not relevant here as the quotes you provide in rebuttal are just as dated. I'm not discrediting your effort based on the date of your material nor your insistence on being rude in your speech by referring to points of discussion as crap, utter claptrap, labeling material as fanatical and lumping a whole argument under the label of "Christian Nation" or somesuch.

You make some excellent points amidst your sarcasm and I am interested in reading up on the quotes and the assertions you make. You certainly challenge the thinking mill and I thank you for contributing. Please read my other posts and let me know if you think they fall under fanatical underpinnings as well. I sought to provide material that was less ideological and more researchable.

As for college credit Stark, I'm just doing a lot of reading and journaling. I'm beyond college, or rather college for me was quite a few years ago - not that I'm really beyond it. Learning is a life long pleasure. I just simply got tired of too many people jumping into pseudo political/religeon conversations and spewing "Separation of Church and State" without really knowing what they're talking about. Further, I realized that with my frustration toward those people, also came the realization that I didn't know much about the first amendment beyond that particular point. So, I figure someone could just as well call me on the issue of not knowing the further detail and that I should create some dialogue and hope that interested, responsible people would respond. Surprisingly, thus far there has been little of the typical ATOT flamefest and I appreciate the interaction we've had thus far.

 

[gopunk]

you know, all historical studies aside, do you really think it's a great idea to mix religion and government? do you really want your children being taught how to be a witch?

Furthering the substantiation of historical authenticity would be a ?non-Christian? search on biblical accounts. Typing into Google the words ?non-Christian biblical reference? and you will be met with a host of web pages, links to scientific and archeological findings regarding such noted historical figures such as Josephus, Lucian of Samasata, Pliny, Tacitus, Antipas, Tiberias, Herod, Suetonius, Julias Africanus, Origen among many, many others. These peoples lives do more to substantiate and solidify the person of Jesus and validate historical events than detract from authenticity. Moreover, no one questions the veracity of these figures because we ?know? they existed and that their historical accounts are accurate.

Well, my thinking is that if they are not discredited in their accounts of history and their lives, how is it that we are able to imbue an aire of incredulity toward Biblical perspectives today? There are hundreds of references non-christian which validate biblical historical events, locations and persons. In fact, there is more evidence validating the reciprocity of Biblical Scripture to today?s world than any other documented article of historical significance. The folly of extremist and fanatical Christian forebears aside, it would appear that the only argument against the validity of the Bible is the uninformed one. I say this only as a factual historical perspective, not as a theological quest into spiritual waters.

you know, it isn't hard to write a religious text and mix in real life with it as well. i'm not aware of anything that validates really anything pertaining to the actual religious aspect of the bible, are you?

 

[EXman]

If you take the time to post, please only do so only after reading through this thread. There are considerate posts which address much of the detail here and it would be a disservice to put in your .02 cents without acknowledging the work that has already been done.

if you decide to make a thread this old and crusty and beat to death and put this qualifier in it don't be surprised if people come in and go blah blah blah 😕

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stark
sketcher,

I hope you're getting college credit for all the stuff your writing. I'd hate to think your wasting all that brainpower on ATOT. 😛

He didn't write it. It was a cut and paste of some very old and thoroughly disproven "Christian Nation" fanatical writing.

Yes, I see the word "fanatical" debunks everything I've written or quoted. Regarding the original post - I don't argue there is some question as to the validity of some of those claims. I'm reading up on it myself and am belaboring the point to read the references which you've provided as quotes in your posts Amused. I've explained my reasoning for leaving it as posted. I've also edited my posts to reflect italic wording for the statments that are not mine. It was never my intention to claim ownership of cut and paste material but to offer up topic for discussion. I state that I will provide quoted references for the points of which I intend to argue so that the references can be followed rather than just my insistence that it exists.

As for "very old and thoroughly disproven", there is some aspect of that in the first post and I admit to there being a measure of questionable content but "thoroughly" would be an inaccurate assessment and "very old" is not relevant here as the quotes you provide in rebuttal are just as dated. I'm not discrediting your effort based on the date of your material nor your insistence on being rude in your speech by referring to points of discussion as crap, utter claptrap, labeling material as fanatical and lumping a whole argument under the label of "Christian Nation" or somesuch.

You make some excellent points amidst your sarcasm and I am interested in reading up on the quotes and the assertions you make. You certainly challenge the thinking mill and I thank you for contributing. Please read my other posts and let me know if you think they fall under fanatical underpinnings as well. I sought to provide material that was less ideological and more researchable.

As for college credit Stark, I'm just doing a lot of reading and journaling. I'm beyond college, or rather college for me was quite a few years ago - not that I'm really beyond it. Learning is a life long pleasure. I just simply got tired of too many people jumping into pseudo political/religeon conversations and spewing "Separation of Church and State" without really knowing what they're talking about. Further, I realized that with my frustration toward those people, also came the realization that I didn't know much about the first amendment beyond that particular point. So, I figure someone could just as well call me on the issue of not knowing the further detail and that I should create some dialogue and hope that interested, responsible people would respond. Surprisingly, thus far there has been little of the typical ATOT flamefest and I appreciate the interaction we've had thus far.

Sketcher, you'll have to excuse my sarcasm, as it stems from having to repeat this every time somebody parrots the myths in your original post. It gets old debunking this over and over, but at the same time, it must be done lest someone actually believes it.