Teaching The Bible In School
Posted on October 16, 2005
In 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state-sponsored devotional Bible reading as unconstitutional in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp. However, the court never meant to eliminate the Bible from public schools. As a matter of fact, the justices repeatedly made clear that teaching about the Bible, as long as indoctrination was not involved, is fully constitutional as long as it’s done in the correct context. But many schools ignore the Bible as much as possible in a misguided effort to avoid conflict, and possible lawsuits. Threatening letters in seperation of Church and State issues from the ACLU cause many schools to just “play it safe.”
This could soon change. A new textbook is being introduced, and suprisingly it is being embraced by not only many religious scholars, but also by secularists. One can not deny with any intellectual honesty that the Bible and its influence has had a lot to do in shaping our history, and the world we live in today. Many have noted that Shakespear is full of Biblical references, and one could not properly understand it without also understanding the meanings and background of those references. Its influence are inevitable in our history, culture, literature, art, and music.
Despite the current view of steering clear from Biblical issues in the school system, things may be about to change.
-snip-
New high school textbooks don’t ordinarily make headlines. But “The Bible and Its Influence” is no ordinary textbook. Published by the Bible Literacy Project, it’s the first attempt in many years to get the Bible back into the public school curriculum - without a fight. When the book was unveiled last week, the news media took note.Source
-snip-
If any textbook can overcome this bitter history and provide an alternative to both the imposers and removers, The Bible and Its Influence may be it. Why? Because it’s written to conform to the constitutional and educational standards laid out in “The Bible and Public Schools,” a consensus guide published six years ago by the First Amendment Center and the Bible Literacy Project and endorsed by a wide range of groups - from the National Association of Evangelicals to People for the American Way Foundation. In a concerted effort to meet these standards, the editors left little to chance. Scholars from across the religious spectrum reviewed draft after draft.The result is the first textbook of its kind in American history. At long last, here is an answer for beleaguered school districts that want to offer a Bible course, but don’t want to get sued. Until the release of this book (along with the promise of a university-based, online teacher-training program), there wasn’t any Bible textbook or curriculum guide that I would recommend for use in a public school. Now there is.
Reservations are coming from the usual suspects:
Others express concern: “I don’t think the Constitution prohibits the use of this textbook, but I have real doubts about the wisdom of this approach,” says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “At this time in America, it’s better to simply talk about religious influences when they come up during the study of literature, art, and history, and not take the text of one religious tradition and treat it with special deference.”
Mr. Lynn also worries that individual teachers might go beyond the text itself and “spin it in ways that may well violate the Constitution.”Source
I can’t find a response from the ACLU right now, but I figure it will be something like this.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
60 Responses to “Teaching The Bible In School”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
“One can not deny with any intellectual honesty that the Bible and its influence has had a lot to do in shaping our history, and the world we live in today.”
Yeah, well, you can make the same case for the Koran. Without it we’d probably still have a matching pair of 1,400′ skyscrapers in the southern part of Manhattan. Should they teach the basics of the Koran in public school? And what about the book of Mormon — you really think teaching only the Christian Bible would go over well in Salt Lake City? How about the Vedas; should they teach one, two, three or all four of them? And the Bhagavad Gita? There are around a billion Hindus in the world, you know.
Oh, and what to do about the Apocrypha? In or out? Oops — can’t forget about the Zend Avesta series. Zoroastrianism ain’t dead!
Hey, I have a solution. Maybe religious studies could be offered as a requirement in religious schools and an elective in some public schools. Oops — that’s already been done!
I really don’t know what your essential gripe with the ACLU is. Take an honest look around and you’ll see all sorts of instances of ACLU lawyers defending *individual* religious freedoms — like those of this guy…
“If it wasn’t for the ACLU, I’d still be in jail.”
http://www.pntonline.com/engine.pl?station=portales&template=storyfull.html&id=5759
I could give you dozens of similar examples, but you seem hell-bent on painting the organization as a rabidly anti-Christian outfit. Now, surely you don’t think the ACLU or anyone should stand by and let the *government* endorse or sponsor any *particular* religion, do you? Nah, I thought not.
Don’t have a problem having an elective in a public school to learn about the influence of any of those religions. You seem hell bent on using words like “government endorsement”, which this would not be.
It’s not that the ACLU takes cases were the government is out of line… it is that they take plenty of cases were the Constitution is not in play and tries to make all policy decision a matter of court approval.
Let’s take abstinence education. No ones rights are violated by having to sit through a couple of classes. Parents can still teach their kids all about masturbation, fornication, and buttsex. They are simply imposed on having to listen to something they’d rather not for 30 minutes. Much like a DARE class. Or those endlessly stupid drunk driving things.
You hear seperation of church and state alot. Did you ever realize that it says “church” for a reason? Christianity is not a church. The Anglican Church is a Church. If they wanted religion banned from public life Jefferson would have said seperation of religion and state.
Even Christianity isn’t a religion, as such. It’s an entire grouping of 50,000 some odd variations of religions.
When the court ruled for Neadow against the pledge, it said that the pledge (under God) established monotheism as the official state religion. This is how dumb it has gotten. Monotheism is an attribute of religion, not a religion in and of itself, and certainly not a Church. Take a look in the phonobook and look up the First United Church of Monotheism.
Bill Eamick, may I ask you a question?
Do you understand the difference between this phrase;
“…respecting an establishment of religion”
and this one?
“respecting a religious establishment”
The first one is, most fittingly, part of the first amendment, the second one is HOW the ACLU and other seditious lefties interpret those words.
There is a clear and marked difference. The words from the First amendment mean what they say, that government cannot make a law that creates a state approved religious establishment, (like the church of england), but translated through the lens of liberalism and christian hating zealots they come out to mean, “the government can have no connection to religion whatsoever”.
There is no LAW that says “YOU HAVE TO STUDY THE BIBLE” or one that reads “The Ten Commandments MUST be posted at all courthouses”. The ACLU however seems to have taken that stance.
I think that the preacher that was arrested should have been arrested, he was, after all, yelling at people that drove by. That could create just one moments distraction to a driver and cause an accident. It is npot a safe situation when someone is standing at the side of the road yelling at passing cars, (nor is it effective), and that type of behavior should not be tolerated.
When you can understand the difference between the phrases I have written above, feel free to come back for some decent debate. Until then, please see a doctor about that cranialrectalitis.
thats craialrectalism.
Bill? Was that yet another drive-by commenting, randomly directing your own personal hatred? You clearly have issues of hatred for the Bible, Bill, and I won’t bother the hazard a guess why.
This country was, at one time, whether you want to admit it or not, Bill, based on Christianity. 52 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were active members and leaders in their churches.
We used to be free to talk about being Christian and the God of Christianity. Today, people are “offended” by that talk. And well they should be — those who are offended are often very guilty of wrongdoing. So, Bill, perhaps you should look inward to determine what’s wrong with you, inside, before you come attacking others for having faith in God.
Wow…How easy was that for him to be flippant about the WTC? He obviously has even bigger issues than hatred for the Bible.
I doubt the wingnuts are going to be satisfied with the bible being taught as a piece of history or literature. We’re supposed to be objective about those things.
“This country was, at one time, whether you want to admit it or not, Bill, based on Christianity.”
This comment exemplifies the general ignorance and obvious Christian bigotry that permeates this rathole. You might want to investigate what *deists* like Jerrerson, Paine, Adams and others really thought about Christianity and organized religion in general.
Few of you will be satisfied until the U.S. becomes synonymous with traditional, bass-ackward Christianity in matters of government, education and even science. You wouldn’t bat an eye if the ACLU fought just as hard to ensure no special treatment for Hindus, Muslims and others (which they have and do). You crave a state-sponsored and a total dissolution of any meaningful boundaries between Jeebus and free society. Why not simply admit it? That’s what your “faith” is all about anyway.
Is one of you geniuses going to step up and explain why any thinking person *wouldn’t* resist the teaching of religious mythology (of any sect) as “history”? Nope? Good.
I’m deeply thankful that the ACLU is around to keep malignant fundagelical morons at bay, and even more thankful that things aren’t going to change and that there’s nothing you can do about it except screech ann yammer on a forgotten little Internet hole-in-the-wall.
Sorry for the typos and misspellings, but hey, when in Rome…and I should add that any of you who think that a distaste for seeing a religious text used as a history text represents “hatred” for the Bible are supremely stupid, even by the standard of rah-rah-the-left-sucks emptyheads.
The Bible is full of wonderful truths, and there’s no reason to waste time “hating” it, and saying as much about those who oppose your views is just a convenient excuse for ignoring facts. I might just as accurately claim that because you don’t like the ACLU, you “hate” laws and lawyers and must all be crooks, although I might be spot on.
Your hatred for the Bible is quite apparant. These classes would be electives, so don’t start the crap about people being forced to see other points of view besides the close minded atheistic one.
Jay, just ban the atheist and be done with him. The POS isn’t worth wasting the bandwidth on.
Gee Bill, ya seem to have a few problems with history that is not revised to your liking and the truth.
“Jerrerson” wrote about a seperation of church state in a letter, and I stand by what he said.
The state should NOT endorse a religion, especially through law. But show me one law on the books right now that LEGALLY MANDATES that ANY RELIGION is THE religion of the U.S.
You can’t, because there isn’t one.
However, some people, **COUGHidiotsCOUGH**, such as yourself Bill, have an unusual aversion to even a symbol of Christianity and are somehow offended when you see a cross, and the ACLU latches onto the stupidity of folks like you Bill and milk it for money and publicity.
Sure they take an occasional case for a christian, but these are much more for publicity than honest defense of their beliefs.
How does it feel, Bill, to be such a tool of the left and to have your head so far up your backside that you can watch you breakfast digest?
I sell glass belly buttons, Bill, just for that condition.
May I send you one for free so that you may have a chance at a life of clarity of thought and clean sinuses?
Or would you rather, as I suspect, continue on your path of never smelling the roses and seeing the granduer of the world due to the fact that you have a serious fecal impactment in your head?
Ahem…. Bill’s comment needs edited for language.
Hey bill, sorry for the typo but hey when in Rome… One day you are going to wish you had read a little more of that HS as you call it. Just a guess here but I am thinking you don’t believe in God. Which makes you an atheist which is a religion by the way you just believe that you believe in nothing. And if you are now thinking well I believe in myself!! I repeat you believe in nothing.
Ouch Carolyn….I am so gonna stay on your good side dear.
Man, listen to Gribbit. “BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN!!!!” What’s the matter? Something other than mutual backslapping making you think a little harder than you’re used to thinking here? Don’t worry, it only hurts for a little while.
Kender, I don’t think someone who has “Kenders’ Musings” proudly emblazoned on his wreck of a blog in direct flaunting of basic grammar — and can’t spell “grandeur” correctly — should be harping on anyone’s typos.
“How does it feel, Bill, to be such a tool of the left and to have your head so far up your backside that you can watch you breakfast digest?”
That’s funny, because I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my entire life. But I, like many toward the fiscal and sociological right, have no use for the Bible-whacking moralizing undereducated hypocrites and their supporters (he said with a sweep of his arm) who have ruined the GOP.
“But show me one law on the books right now that LEGALLY MANDATES that ANY RELIGION is THE religion of the U.S. You can’t, because there isn’t one.”
Correct. So explain how, in legal terms, rabid Christians feel justified in claiming that America was founded on Christian principles and that the Bible deserves special dispensation in public schools. And trying to force ID creationism — solely the brainchild of Christian creaionists — on everyone else.
“some people, **COUGHidiotsCOUGH**, such as yourself Bill, have an unusual aversion to even a symbol of Christianity and are somehow offended when you see a cross”
I couldn’t care less about seeing crosses. I’m not a vampire. They’re easily ignored, just like ugly billboards.
“Sure they take an occasional case for a christian, but these are much more for publicity than honest defense of their beliefs.”
What size is your tinfoil hat, by the way?
“…you have a serious fecal impactment in your head?”
How apt. The term is “fecal impaction.”
I’ll leave you with a quote from Jefferson/Jerrerson:
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”
“I am thinking you don’t believe in God. Which makes you an atheist which is a religion by the way you just believe that you believe in nothing.”
How eloquent, Carolyn. And how original as well. Interestingly, a scholarly definition of atheism includes only the rejection of a proposal by others, not the proposing of a belief system. Atheism means “without God,” not “Ant-God.” But if it makes you feel better to label atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or a pink elephant, have at it. By the way, you’re an atheist yourself, assuming you don’t believe in Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, etc. I just happen to believe in one less phantasm than you do.
Speakin of HS, Bill is full of it. Jefferson also distributed Bibles and Hymnals into the first schools. No one is advocating teaching the Bible over any other religion. They are already teaching kids Islam. Why should their be a double standard?
“They are already teaching kids Islam. Why should their be a double standard?”
There shouldn’t be. They should put a stop to that garbage if what appears to be going on actually is. That’s far worse than simply reading from a religious text.
As long as kids aren’t being misled into thinking tribal legends are facts, I don’t really care what sort of electives are offered.
Well there you go. If you read the post carefully you will find that this is not actually THE Bible, but a textbook carefully written to not violate the first amendment and teach kids the proper influence the Bible has had in history. I’m sure there are just as many negative impacts its misinterpretations have brought on the world, as there are wonderful inspirations that have brought us further enlightenment. It has influenced music, art, history, etc. Would you rather erase that portion of history? Because it is fact whether you like it or not.
Bill, not that I expect you to comprehend this, however, just in case one of your caretakers is there to wipe the drool from your chin and adjust your helmet while spooning apple sauce into your slack jaw, go here and have them explain what it means.
BTW, are you going to compete in the tug-o-drool at the next special olympics?
Keep it up, Kender. I honestly get a kick out of borderline illiterates who see invoking mental-retardation jokes as their only recourse when faced with superior intellects. Let’s see, drool bibs, helmets, Special Olympics references…yep, you’ve just about hit ‘em all. You should be proud to represent the U.S. and Christianity.
Are you really a Twain fan? I take it you haven’t read “Letters from the Earth.”
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm
Great stuff, once you ascend to the necessary reading level and develop a sense of irony to go with your crazed Elmer Fudd outlook on life.
Superior intelligence? Ha! I’m done talking, there is no use to have conversations with elitists.
No Bill, I am not tossing out the tard jokes because I am cowed by your intellect, I just find it more entertaining that trying to convince you that you don’t possess the skills necessary to understand that you are a complete idiot. Atheism IS a religion, moron.
Mayhaps I should start editing your comments to reflect your mental development.
But then I don’t want to sit here and write “duuuh….uuuhhh, duhduh duuuh drool” all afternoon.
And Twain did say some great things, but in todays world he would be a liberal idiot.
You are right about one thing, there is nothing wrong with refusing to suffer fools, and from this point on, I refuse to to suffer you. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, you’re the fool. Feel free to continue talking to yourself here in the comments.
Bill, while I do allude to Jefferson and his contemporaries, especially considering that they created the documents that this country is founded upon, and consider them men of great wisdom, Twain plays no part in the founding of this country, and was very critical of the government, (rightly so) while being a dyed in the wool coward.
He wrote great works of literature to be sure, (and in a small aside here, it is the liberal idiots in this country that get them banned from schools for the use of the vernacular of the times he lived and wrote in…banning books…remind you of anyone?), and he was witty, but he was also, as I said, a miserable coward that apparently had no understanding of the need to defend the country at times.
Here is something he wrote that could have been written by any of today’s liberal cowards, if one were to take the eloquence out of it.
If you had bothered to click on the post above you would see that I have shown that atheism IS a religion.
But just so you can get some knowledge click HERE to read it.
By the way, you aren’t an elitist. No, far from that you are a very common person. In fact, I would say that you are simply a common Son of…..your mom.
This idiot Bill sounds just like the idiot Evans, possible the same person just coming back so Jay can shove some more truth up his _ _ _ .
Next comment from you Bill may very well be edited for content to more accurately reflect your intelligence.
The so-called separation of church and state was and has never been law, this so-called law is nothing more than one mans opinion.
there was never any movement to amend the constitution to include it and as a matter of fact the only amendment says that congress can’t touch it. The claims that Jefferson did not like religion are false because he had four-hour communion services in the House of Representatives.
the Church and state issue is not law. This was never entered into our constitution and therefor cannot be used as law. Cases that were decided on this mans opinion not constitution are void, and without merit. Many a people have had opinions, even the judges of the Supreme Court. However, that is all it is opinion, it is not fact nor is it law. The only thing that even deals with religion in the constitution plainly states that congress is to leave it alone.
Carolyn, given the level of your acumen in interpreting important legal documents, I take it you won’t be a judicial nominee anytime soon, nor will you be submitting any of your “essays” for publication. That’s being mild.
“If you had bothered to click on the post above you would see that I have shown that atheism IS a religion”
I did click on it and I laughed. Still clinging to that one claim about atheism, are ya? Goes well with “you stoopid drool bib helmet speshal olympics blah blah commie libberal.” Perhaps in your mind a broken, spectacularly stupid set of premises, inferences and conclusions constitutes the “demonstration” of something, but those of us in the real world aren’t so permissive.
Do you believe in Allah? If not, you’re an atheist, which means you by your own definition adhere to multiple religions, which, you’ll recall, is forbidden by God Himself. I’m sure you can try to flail your way out of this one with all the cognitive wattage you’ve shown already.
Also, instead of threatening to edit my comments, why not edit your site? It’s an eyesore and an affront to proper communication as well as to the truth.
I don’t remember Kender ever claiming to be Christian. Someon could be agnostic, or atheist for that matter, and still stick up for Christianity’s influence, and morals having their proper place in history.
I ask again, had you rather erase this truth? Would you like to lie to our children and tell them that Christianity had no place in our history?
Actually under the belief that there is but one God, His name really doesn’t matter. Personally I think George Carlin had it right when he said he prays to Joe Pesci….he gets about the same results.
And Jay is correct, I have never once stated anywhere what my religious beliefs are, or if I even hold to any, but that is a moot point, as religion is the WAY one lives their life, not what church, synagogue or mosque they attend.
But I don’t expect you to understand that Bill. You seem to lack the capability to understand that religion needn’t be based in a belief of a creator, but rather IS whatever beliefs a person holds to.
If you are truly not religious in anyway, then you must not believe in anything at all, which I find hard to believe.
BTW, I don’t feel the need to edit my site. I like the colors and scheme I have put up there, and if you don’t then nobody is forcing you to visit.
Bill, perhaps you should channel your anger into your own blog eh?
“Someon could be agnostic, or atheist for that matter, and still stick up for Christianity’s influence, and morals having their proper place in history.”
And one need not rely on religion or notions of gods in order to internalize and value morality.
“Would you like to lie to our children and tell them that Christianity had no place in our history?”
Handing out Bibles and teaching the nuts and bolts of a religion’s place in culture are hardly the same thing. But now that you mention it, perhaps American kids would be well served to know how fervent the FFs were about preventing America from becoming another theocracy.
But why stop with Christ? What about the pagan traditions and Babylonian legends Christianity was borrowed from? How far back should we go?
Actually, I’d rather my children not read the Bible in school. It’s full of filth — tales of old men screwing young girls, incest, rape, genocide, misogyny, and various cruelties and atrocities. Then there’s the whole concept of killing your offsping owing to the sins of someone else — now there’s a way to teach people about personal responsibility! Being an upstanding guy I cringe at such iniquities.
Kender, the colors on your site are in fact ugly as hell, but I was talking about fixing the various English mistakes, starting with the most glaring one — “Kenders’”. Ordinarily I wouldn’t harp on stuff like this, but given your ferocious preoccupation with others’ intelligence despite evincing nothing but ineptitude youself, it would go a long way in giving you at least a facade of credibility.
Speaking of ineptitude, where did you learn to read?
Handing out Bibles and teaching the nuts and bolts of a religion’s place in culture are hardly the same thing.
No one is suggesting handing out Bibles…read the freakin article. I think you read the title and jumped to the conclusion. We are talking about a textbook here, not a Bible.
Pagan religions are already taught, amongst them are Roman and Greek mythology. All major influences of history belong just there…in our history.
I can understand the people who don’t want it in the science class a lot more than someone who wants to completely erase something from history.
OK, I am really done trying to reason with Bill. He is too thick headed to talk to rationally. BTW Bill, the apostrophe on my site is because all of the contributors there are a Kender at heart…mischivious, fearless, curious and great at taunting those that anger them.
But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that either.
I think I will now commence with the random name calling, you putrid pile of pubescent ejaculate.
See? I really had no reason to say that, but you have proven to be a troll of unusual tenacity. Actually I am grateful for that.
It is a rare day when I get the chance to tell somebody that they are the spawn of a mattress thrashing gutter slug that should not have been so lax in sparing the rod and taught their snot-nosed petulant brat some manners when they visit someone else’s house.
Thanks for stopping by and please come back. I have a long list of adjectives that will aptly describe your lineage, your upbringing and your hygiene habits. (or lack thereof)
And Bill? Or should I say “School Marm”? I capitalize “American” when I feel it is deserved of the extra stretch of my finger. When writing about the american left, I don’t capitalize that as I feel those traitorous rats don’t deserve any extra effort of my finger unless it is on a trigger.
As for the apostrophe, as I have mentioned elswhere, it is in the correct place, as those that contribute to my blog are all an honorary kender….they all have an insatiable curiosity, are utterly fearless and have a great ability to taunt that that need taunting.
So NANANANANANAAAAAA!!!
By the way School Marm Bill, I am glad you don’t like the colors of my blog. Honestly I have been thinking of changing things up a bit, but I believ I willleave them alone now in the hopes that they make your eyes bleed.
Bill, congratulations.
I have decided to award you the Flying Finger Award for Cluelessness Above and Beyond the Call of Duty.
Your mother must be so proud.
Now, go pray to ST.FU
Fisher Ames, the same man who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms.
John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.
The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that “education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”
An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder’s lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: “Christianity …was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
” You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.” George Washington
” Let…statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educating their little boys and girls…and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” Samuel Adams
“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion…and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Benjamin Franklin
“Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT
“The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” John Quincy Adams
A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.
97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.
187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.
Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.
You could hardly find a school in America that wasn’t Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830’s. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.
Fewer and fewer people remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.
The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase “protection of divine providence”.
Five to those who can admit the phrase “created equal” means created by God, not evolved from chaos.
Sputters Kender:
“BTW Bill, the apostrophe on my site is because all of the contributors there are a Kender at heart…mischivious, fearless, curious and great at taunting those that anger them.”
I’m sure you have just as credible an excuse for your creative spelling of “mischievous.”
At least Jay is staying on topic. Yes, Jay, I read the linked article, and I’m aware that the book in question would, in a “just” Christian world, be used as a tool to do exactly what its publisher not-so-subtly intended — force-feed children who may be either happily god-free or grounded in other religions the Protestant Bible, even if they don’t actually require the Bible itself to be read.
If the courses remain electives, no problem. And I don’t see this textbook as unconstitutional. I’d actually read it myself, just as I’ve read the Bible for kicks and for its cultural significance. But with American kids falling increasingly behind in the sciences, wasting time on mythology is a poor idea.
You know and I know that once hardline Christians gain footholds, they don’t quit even when they’re fighting both law and reason. Thye agitate far more firecely than do ACLU lawyers. If it weren’t got Godders, the ACLU would have little reason to exist, but these [edited] are relentless. Just look at some of the dumb comments people have puked up here.
There’s also a reason religious schools exist. Parents who want their kids thoroughly exposed to particular religions, brainwashed, or both can always opt for these, as well as for places like Liberty “University” later on.
Nope School Marm, “mischievous” was simply bad spelling on my part. I really shoul use spell check once in awhile.
Well, at least Bill admits he is an elitist. Why don’t we all just bow down to his superior intellect. After all, he is clearly omnipotent — since there is no God in Bill’s world, and he is all-knowing, Bill must be God.
Oh Bill, please do impart more of your divine wisdom of hatred of all things religious and right so that we may learn more. We know so little. Please tell us who to vote for so that we may do as you command.
Amen Ogre. It hadn’t occured to me that I was calling God names…..how horrid of me.
Well, Mr. Bill freely admits that he knows all and more than anyone else here (or anywhere else on the planet). He has a very open, visible hostility to God, and no one likes competition. So clearly, Bill is trying to tell us he’s god.
Or maybe he is Zeus? Or Odin? Or Jupiter?
My bet he is Loki.
I wonder what Bill would have done 50 years ago when the Bible was the only book in schools. Is he like the old Roman gods — he becomes more powerful when people worship him and weaker when people ignore him?
In that case, Bill Who?
“He has a very open, visible hostility to God”
That’s not possible. Do you hate Yoda, Wonder Woman or the Silver Surfer?
I do have a certain distaste for those who claim to speak for the concept, however, and I’m glad you were able to discern as much.
“…maybe he is Zeus? Or Odin? Or Jupiter?”
Zeus and Jupiter are the same entity, genius. Some theologian you are.
“I wonder what Bill would have done 50 years ago when the Bible was the only book in schools.”
The only one? Really? Amazing that my parents, who are in their late 50s, were able to learn so much math, science, history and English solely from a collection of fairy tales.
Regardless, you’ve underscored something worth keeping in mind: Despite the fumblefart ineptitude of the George W. Bush administration, significant progress has been made in the past half-century. Creation “science” and the reading of sectarian prayers over intercoms have both been tossed from public schools, and there’s hope for even greater enlightenment yet.
Bill Eamick…
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! — Patrick Henry
[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]
Few could dispute that this quotation is consistent with Henry’s life and character. (Interestingly, those who advocate a secular society today view Henry as an arch enemy.) One early biographer describes how Henry reprinted and distributed Soame Jennings book, View of the Internal Evidence of Christianity, 1 and also that Henry looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country’s institutions.2 Bishop Meade, writing of Virginia families in general, says of Henry that, despite possible periods of alienation, his attachment to the [Episcopal] Church of his fathers is clearly established. 3 In one of many courtroom speeches, Henry offered these thoughts (one need not agree with his ideas to understand the context):
I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them.4
In a 1796 letter to his daughter Henry stated:
Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appelation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.
After offering a general survey of America’s Christian history, and speaking out against the practice of polygamy, the Holy Trinity court stated:
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.10
Justice David J. Brewer, author of the Holy Trinity opinion, also wrote a book in 1905 called The United States: A Christian Nation. Brewer opened his work with these words:
We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 11
The laws and institutions of our country rest on a religious foundation; the quote in question is consistent with his thoughts. It is absurd to think that the religion of a country does not inform and shape those laws and institutions that overlap religious opinion-its sense of morality. Such was the case in early American history. The religious nature of America, to include the harmonious relationship between Church and state, was rarely challenged with credibility until the modern courts began implementing their own selective and revisionist version of American history. Other courts have stated ideas similar to Holy Trinity. In 1952, the Supreme Court declared:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.
. . . . . . . . . .
When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions.
…………………….
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. — Samuel Adams
…………………
I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. — Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson’s religious thoughts are well-documented. As he fought the battles of dogmatic, sectarian divisiveness, one can find religious quotations both positive and negative. He indeed rejected the supernatural elements of Scripture, but he spoke favorably on the morality of the New Testament. For example, notice these excerpts from his letters. They reveal both his dislike of sectarianism, as well as his love for what he considered the pure doctrines of Jesus:
An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Motte, in a discourse of much emotion and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added, that in heaven, God knew no distinctions, but considered all good men as his children, and as brethren of the same family. I believe, with the Quaker preacher, that he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven, as to the dogmas in which they all differ. That on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristides and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Baptists, will find themselves united in all principles which are in concert with the reason of the supreme mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.26
To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others. 27
But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.28
Jefferson also put together his own version of the Bible, less the references to the supernatural (virgin birth, miracles, etc.). He called it The Life and Morals of Jesus, and it reveals his reverence for that part of the Bible that he found “reasonable.” The Fifty-seventh Congress ordered a reprint of his work. 29 Many people have questioned his mutilation of the canon, but one is forced to agree that it would be very much in character for him to recommend studying the Bible. To deny this is to deny that he swore “upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
…………………
The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. — John Quincy Adams
Here is yet another quote. Its source can be traced to John Wingate Thornton’s The Pulpit of the American Revolution, 32 which was published in 1860. This quote was published only 15 years after JQA’s death, and is entirely consistent with JQA’s numerous July 4th Orations. For example, in his 1837 Oration at Newburyport, Massachusetts, answering why we celebrate the birthday of our nation, Adams stated:
Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. 33
The entire Newburyport Oration is actually a political sermon where one might expect to read the quote.
…………………..
Advocates of a secular society use the slightest discrepancy to advance their own intolerant and bigoted agenda. Ignoring their own weaknesses and failures, they attempt to discredit both the message and messenger of America’s religious history. Their efforts are futile, however, for the religious foundations of America, to include the interactions between church and state, are well-documented and easily-unearthed.
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God–1810” –Thomas Paine
You probably ought to read “The Age of Reason” if you want the full, true flavor of Thomas Paine’s regard for Christianity.
CHAPTER IV - OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY.
IT is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.
The Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a mountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable suggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the Giants was told many hundred years before that of Satan.
Thus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story of Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in order to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is made up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish traditions.
The Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?
Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded –put Satan into the pit–let him out again–given him a triumph over the whole creation–damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.html
Bill, if you truly knew what you were talking about you would know that Zeus, Jupiter, Odin and God are all one and the same. All of them have been at the head of various religious groups at one time or another.
Jupiter was, of course, stolen from the the greeks. I could go on, as I have studied the histories of many religions, but you have that superior intellect going for you. So never mind.
infidels.org is not credible.
Oh, now Bill gets to the heart of the matter and admits not only that he knows better than everyone else, but his base hatred for ANYONE who is religious AND Bush.
Bill, you are a very small person. I truly hope that one day you will find another outlet for your emotions. I assure you that your life can be so much better if you stop hating so much.
It is clear that no one has truly introduced you to Jesus Christ. I wish that I could. I will say a prayer for you and your life.
Bill Eamick…
“You probably ought to read “The Age of Reason” if you want the full, true flavor of Thomas Paine’s regard for Christianity.”
Frankly, it would have surprised me if you had NOT offered up Paine as your standard.
This letter is Benjamin Franklin’s response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.
TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
Thomas Paine on “The Study of God”
Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a
Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists
It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.
When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .
The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal.
Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution””; 7 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work. 8 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 9
When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 10 Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 11 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine’s attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 12 In fact, Paine’s views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 13
kender:
“Bill, if you truly knew what you were talking about you would know that Zeus, Jupiter, Odin and God are all one and the same. All of them have been at the head of various religious groups at one time or another.”
Uh-huh. There’s really only one god who goes by many names, yet the God of the Christly Bible expressly warns against having other Gods before him just to throw some intrigue into the game.
There’s also the small problem of Zeus/Jupiter being a homologue of Thor, not Odin (Thor’s father). A scholar like you surely has access to the details.
loboinok:
“infidels.org is not credible.”
I see. So if a Web site reproduces a historical document word for word, and you happen to not like the Web site, the document is invalid? This “logic” is consistent with that shown time and again by the squint-eyed crybabies on this site.
Infidels.org is a great resource, by the way. I understand your frustration in being confronted with such a vast array of highly educated people with whom you disagree on most matters metaphysical and political, but to dismiss it as epistemically valueless demonstrates nothing more than your own close-mindedness and denial.
Finally, a group of people who by and large appear to find Wingnut Daily and creationist sites to be credible news source are advised against impugning the integrity of virtually everything, for obvious reasons.
Ogre:
“I truly hope that one day you will find another outlet for your emotions. I assure you that your life can be so much better if you stop hating so much.”
Right, and the steady stream of angry, misinformed tripe emanating from stoptheaclu.com is a productive outlet for blind, right-wing emotional angst. If you weren’t all somewhat less than capable, you might be able to run for office instead of blubbering in rage and disappointment all day, every day.
You pray for him Ogre…..and I will pray that he gets intimately acquainted with something painful and embarrassing.
“I will pray that he gets intimately acquainted with something painful and embarrassing.”
Your true “Christian” colors are showing. I may present my positions unflinchingly and in strong language, but this doesn’t extend to wishing bodily harm upon others, insulting their family members, etc., even when it is clear that they should be sterilized for the good of the planet.
Between comments like the above and being too cowardly to live up to the promise in the sidebar of your turdstain of a site, I can only conclude that you’re all of 18 or 19, in which case there *may* be hope for you someday.
Guess we’re done here now.
Since you failed to address the ‘Paine’ post and instead, centered on the ‘infidels.org’ comment…
Concerning ’separation of Church and state’
infidels.org…
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others,
a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association,
in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Footnotes:
[1] This text was previously given in an abridged version. This version is presumably the complete letter. I have extracted it from the Library of America edition of the Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1984), page 510. — Bill Schultz
………………………
A better site…
The Separation of Church and State
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
……………………….
This information is readily available and easily found by a simple search… the fact that infidels.org omits it, show that it is not credible.
Bill, (even though I doubt you will come back to read this), I am older than 18 or 19, by quite a bit, and again you have assumed that I am a christian……I have never written that, or anything else about mt beliefs anywhere as they relate to eternity or a lack thereof.
I’m not sure what “promise” on my sidebar you are talking about, but I don’t have to “live up” tyo anything you expect of me.
I will insult your family, you, your dog, and wish upon you any painful, embarrassing condition I wish. I never wished you bodily harm, but if you take teh writings on teh internet so seriously, (which you must because I have caused you to write tons of silly things here), then may your sphincter grow to match your the size of your ego and your and your testicles shrink to match your comprehension.