I don’t think small quotes from the founding fathers are any indication of their complete feelings and beliefs.
Wisdom comes from discernment. Understanding the subtle, but important differences between religion, spirituality, Christianity, and God.
Our countries founders would have been raised in some religion, given the time of their birth, probably Christianity. They, like most people would have developed their own stance in this area. To say that religion, or Christianity, had no influence on our constitution is wrong. The world was filled with dictatorships in their time, and I seriously doubt that any dictator entertained the rights of the people very often.
Jesus taught about the nature of God, and man’s spirituality. The Christian religion was/is about Jesus himself and little about what He taught.
Spirituality is practical, pragmatic, and really the only thing that will work in governing the world as a whole. It is based in Love, respect for all people and their worthiness to be equal in value to each other. These are spiritual principles, dating back as far as written history and presumably beyond.
Jesus taught these principles as well as many other master teachers before Him and since His time. Our founding fathers did not originate these principles, but were wise enough to put them into a constitution for us.
To Love is to understand and approve of diversity of thought and practices, so long as no harm to anyone comes from it. That is what America stands for, even if we fall short of this at times. We have our Bigots, and our altruists, we are not perfect.
Man by nature is spiritual, there is strong evidence of that, found in NDEs, OBEs, etc. There are controlled scientific studies that point in that direction, and I believe will, in a couple of years prove it to all but the closed-minds.
When I was young we prayed in the schools, generic type prayers, our leaders were smart enough not to get into religious issues. Prayer is not religious unless you make it so, and the words, “under God” in the pledge is not religious either. What they do indicate is the belief in a higher intelligence.
lekatt: When you were young, there was legislated apartheid in this country. When you were young, the world was a shittier place. In other words, get with the times.
Good of you to admit this sentiment. It is the crux of the issue. Mordern day Christianity so often misses the forest for the trees. You make the mistake of idolotry rather than placing the importance on his words themselves. No child is kept from quietly praying to his God by himself in the classroom. But that isn’t enough. You want children to vainly proclaim themselves Christian aloud for others to hear. If worship was the issue it would be a non-issue. The public display is rather about self importance and proseltyzing.
I think those quotes give a pretty good idea of part of their own thinking about the relation of religion and government. If you want a discussion of their own personal religious beliefs, that’s another discussion altogether. But those quotes, which you so quickly dismiss as you do all things that contradict your revisionist history, pretty clearly state that the founders themselves did not think that the founding of the country was anymore a religious undertaking than is any other secular activity. That’s what’s so ingenious about it: by leaving religion outside of the process, they could both assure far greater acceptance of government as well as far greater freedom for religion.
Of course, Christianity, like everything else in the culture, had an indirect influence on people. But you act as if just because many people were Christians, that everything they do in life is in some way peculiarly and particularly Christian.
I’ll skip your long section where you inexplicably pull NDEs into a discussion of the pledge.
Which, of course, the state has no business mandating anyone to “indicate.” The founders’ philosophy was that these matters should be left in the hands of people and whatever civil society they voluntarily chose to engage in.
And why should anyone be required to say a generic prayer instead of being free to say a real prayer to the actual God they believe in? No prayer is generic enough to work well for everyone: the only reason it seemed fine to you was because it wasn’t generic: it was was tailored to YOUR particular idea of God, and YOUR particular idea of what was universal and generic.
In recent days, Michael Newdow - infamous for his successful initiation of the ruling striking down “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance - has broadened his efforts and has filed suit against the use of chaplains in the U. S. House and Senate…
…George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. [27] His “Inaugural Address” was filled with numerous religious references, [28] and following that address, he and the Congress “proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine service was performed.” [29]
Only weeks later, Washington signed his first major federal bill - the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of education” in that territory must encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, and it still appears in State constitutions today. Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America’s four “organic” or foundational laws.
Finally, in his “Farewell Address,” Washington reminded the nation:
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 of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
Washington - indisputably a constitutional expert - declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality.
__________________________________:)
Your tripping over words again. We prayed that God would guide our leaders to victory during the war, and to keep safe our loved ones. I don’t know of anyone who objected to that wording. You were not there and couldn’t possibly know anything about whether it was tailored to my idea of God or whatever. You continue to make unwarranted assumptions about things unknown to you. Prayer in schools were legal activity according to the constitution before the atheists, and will be again.
If atheists are offended by prayer or the word “God” let them attend private schools. Atheistism is irrational and illogical, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. You have to take that on faith.
I guess the thing I object to most is the hopelessness of life painted by the atheists. A child taught he was a random event, and will die forever when his body dies is a child with no meaning or purpose to his life. He has also been lied too.
Atheists, no matter how hard they try will never convince the masses of their faith. People are spiritual and will remain so, most have had spiritual experiences and know they are spiritual.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with the attack of atheists on our society. It has to do with proselytism.
Of course Atheism is evangelical. Why would they be forcing their beliefs in our schools and pledges. Looks like you got it backwards.
Picking what quotes I like, rather than Theist, or Deist, or whatever is one of the advantages of being a free thinker.
If an Atheist came up with a quote relevant to a deeper understanding of life, I would choose it also.
It was religious people who inserted “god” into the pledge where he had never been.
It was a different religious people who protested being forced to say the pledge, to begin with (getting the Supreme Court to agree that it was wrong to compel them).
It is religious people who have, throughout the history of the U.S., rioted, vandalized, and even murdered people for simply not going along with having religion imposed on them.
In only a couple of cases has it been an atheist who objected to the imposition of religion. In most cases it has been religious people who saw that they were being abused with a different form of religion who have objected.
Ah Wallbuilders Inc.
Wallbuilders Inc. happens to be a source that was caught fabricating non-existent quotes from the founding fathers. It wasn’t just a case of a simple mistake either: they knowing took a passage from Madison’s Remonstrance and grossly mangled it to say something very different from what it actually says.
Here is what Wallbuilders promulgated as a Madison quote: “Religion is the foundation of government.”
Here is the original passage:
“SECTION 15, Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.”
While I’m not familiar with these two quotes, and will have to look them up, I can’t say that this is a trustworthy source right off the bat, either for quotation, historical description, or interpretation. They have been caught badly mangling the facts before, and we’ll see what they’re up to here…
The reality is, if this were really a trustworthy source on Washington, then why do almost all biographers doubt his Christianity? Washington here did nothing out of the ordinary, and indeed it should be especially noted that references to God and so forth are voluntary additions taken by individual men, not an actual part of the Constitution.
Most of the founders were of the opinion that the common man needed religion, and that religion was a great pacifier of men. That has nothing to do with their own personal beliefs. Washington here says that we should respect religion and moral codes. Well… yes, we should. So what? What does that have to do with laws requiring people to state particular religious beliefs? Your paraphrase badly mangles the quote: what Washington is saying is that people who seek to subvert and destroy religion are doing wrong. I agree, especially given that the CONTEXT of this quote is in reference to what people should not do: screw with people’s religions.
Maybe because they were not allowed to openly object, lekatt? Or maybe because you just didn’t care about the experiences of others very much? Maybe they were afraid of people like you. Many Jews during that time were told by their parents that, while the class prayed to Jesus, they should take the time to reflect upon “what Jews are up against in this world.”
I can know because no prayer can be general enough to encompass everyone’s beliefs. It certainly couldn’t encompass the beliefs of non-believers.
You continue to assert special knowledge that makes you a better authority, but then refuse to elaborate on what this knowledge or experience is. You refuse to even explain how the assumptions are incorrect, which, given that they make no assertion about any particular actuality, but rather draw inferences about logical possibility, is pretty darn silly.
According to the Supreme Court, STATE ORGANIZED prayer was not legal. That’s why it was struck down.
But contrary to your, as usual, highly misleading phrasing, prayer IS and always was legal. You can pray in school anytime you want (when it isn’t disrupting others), right now, in every school in the nation. That’s what it’s all about: the government doesn’t tell you when and where and what to pray. You, and whoever you want to freely get together to pray with, decide.
Can you explain what the hell this means? Who is forcing what particular beliefs into the pledge? Who is forcing what particular beliefs into the schools?
No, I can’t explain what that means, you would just change the topic to something else. You have to understand what you read in another’s post and reply to what was said to debate anything.
But if we took a vote in the US today asking all the people if they wanted prayer back in the schools and God in the pledge, and if they wanted evolution taught as the theory it really is, what do you think the outcome would be. Then take your answer, look at it closely, then you will know who is forcing who.
Poll results do not create reality; a republic is not mob rule.
You have, time and time again, demonstrated your total ignorance of what “theory” means. It does not mean wild ass guess. You are welcome to demonstrate your ignorance time and time again, and I don’t doubt that you will.
I gather from this that you feel it would be perfectly OK if the majority voted to deport all atheists, Muslims, and people of other beliefs. You would accept this as an acceptable event. After all, that is the clear conclusion from your idea that the majority can decide anything they want, even to the point of putting lies into science classes–sort of the way the Soviets insisted on inserting their beliefs into their science classes.
(And it should be noted that evolution is taught as the theory that it is–the only thing prohibited is the teaching of the anti-scientific Creationism.)
You have not bothered to respond to anything of substance in my post, and yet for some reason quote it? How can you possibly describe the LACK of government coercion as “forcing” anyone to do anything? How can you describe that LACK of teaching religion in school tantamount to teaching a religious view?
These and other questions you’ll never answer, tonight on 60minutes with a brick wall.
Which, of course, the ignorant believe includes all creationism. You notice, however, that instead of being shown as a controversial issue that it is, the evolution is forced on people and creationism is restricted in teaching. Hmm…nicely balanced, ain’t it?
