| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2005 09:10:34 PM |
| Object: |
God talk by Presidents |
IV. The Founding Fathers
Argument I: Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, or at least
supported religious involvement in society to inculcate morality in the
citizenry, therefore they didn't believe in separation of church and state.
(1) Indeed many of the most prominent men of the founding era were
Christians, in fact they were Protestant Christians. And Protestants
represented the overwhelming majority of men that signed both the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
But most of the Founding Fathers-and 1 emphasize Founding Fathers instead
of prominent men--were not Christians. It would be more accurate to say
that most of the important founders were religious-not Christian ---but
even this is somewhat of a stretch. Most were deists and rationalists.
Deists, as we all know, believed in Nature's God, not the God of the Old
Testament or the divinity of Jesus. Deism is generally devoid of
theological dogma so it is hard to call it a bona fide religion. it
certainly isn't Christian. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most famous
member of this group, was notable for crossing out the miracles of Jesus in
his personal copy of the New Testament, though he continued to regard
Christ as a great moral leader. This group also includes Benjamin Franklin,
the Renaissance man of the founding period. Other important figures like
James Wilson, Governeur Morris and Thomas Paine were also Deists.
Others men, like James Madison, may have been a deist, the same claim one
could make for George Washington, although he had a nominal connection to
his local Protestant church. John Adams, the second president of the United
States, who negotiated and signed a treaty with Tripoli, which expressly
stated that the United States should in no way be considered a Christian
nation, was probably a theist-but not a Christian. All these men were
opposed to mixing religion with the state. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the
most important of the aforementioned, was the one that first coined the
term "Wall of Separation."
V. God talk by Presidents
(2) But non-separationists-or the other side-- would counter that even if
these were not Christian-or even religious-that they still supported a role
for religion in public life, even in the government. This brings us to the
second and third arguments.
As an initial matter, this is quite true. Almost all of our presidents
engaged in what we call "God-talk." They talk about how their deep beliefs
have gotten them and the country through hard times and that they often
prayed for guidance and deliverance.
There's a simple explanation for all this. They're all politicians! And any
politician worth his or her salt is not going to commit political suicide
by dissing the deity. Gimmee a break. This is only proof that they liked to
get re-elected, not that most of them genuinely believed that such
talk was part of the public policy debates.
In many cases this was a cynical practice by persons like Lincoln who may
not have embraced any religious beliefs. Even Jefferson, the dean of
separation doctrine, spoke often about divine providence and such things.
While he was not an atheist, it probable that he was simply paying
lip-service to religion.
..Preaching Heresy: A Different View of the Church/State Separation
Controversy
Tim Gordinier, PhD, May 11, 2003
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" – Oscar Wilde.
Tim Gordinier, PhD, Director of Public Policy and Education, Institute for
Humanist Studies, spoke with us on "Preaching Heresy: A Different View of
the Church/State Separation Controversy." Not surprisingly, he argues that
the proper relationship of government and religion is one of separation.
What may come as a surprise is the complex history and underlying
motivations of separation.
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "sue_doe_cy_ants" |
|
| Title: James Madison: A Memorial and Remonstrance - ASCII Markup |
27 Jun 2005 05:00:24 PM |
|
|
The following is an ASCII markup of James Madison's
"Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments"
A few quotations from the following document:
"We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion,
no mans right is abridged
by the institution of Civil Society
and that Religion
is wholly exempt from its cognizance."
"Who does not see that the same authority
which can establish Christianity,
in exclusion of all other Religions,
may establish with the same ease
any particular sect of Christians,
in exclusion of all other Sects??
"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace,
to profess and to observe the Religion
which we believe to be of divine origin,
we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds
have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
If this freedom be abused,
it is an offence against God,
not against man:
To God, therefore, not to man,
must an account of it be rendered."
"...experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments,
instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion,
have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries
has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.
What have been its fruits? More or less in all places,
pride and indolence in the Clergy,
ignorance and servility in the laity,
in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence in fact
have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen
to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority;
in many instances
they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny:
in no instance
have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.
Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty,
may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it
needs them not."
James Madison - June 20, 1785,
Letter To the Honorable the General Assembly
of the Commonwealth of Virginia
"A Memorial and Remonstrance"
Mark-up is disseminated copyleft
by the Post Digital Wavefront
----------------
-- Begin Text --
----------------
Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
James Madison - 20 June 1785
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken
into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last
Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision
for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same
if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous
abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to
remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are
determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth,
"that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration
of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be
left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is
the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is
unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on
the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the
dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is
here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is
the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and
such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is
precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation,
to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be
considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered
as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member
of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association,
must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the
General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a
member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of
his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. True it is, that no
other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a
Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the
majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass
on the rights of the minority.
2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the
Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and
vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both
derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the
co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with
regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free
Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds
which separate each department of power be invariably
maintained; but more especially that neither of them be
suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the
rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an
encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive
their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it
are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an
authority derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment
on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the
first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics
of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait
till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and
entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the
consequences in the principle, and they avoided the
consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson
too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same
authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of
all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other
Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to
contribute three pence only of his property for the support of
any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other
establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be
the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in
proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more
liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free
and independent," [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all
men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal
conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining
no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all
are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the
free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of
Conscience." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst
we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and
to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine
origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds
have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not
against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of
it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting
some to [Volume 5, Page 83] peculiar burdens, so it violates
the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a
compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and
unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the
care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed
above all others with extraordinary privileges by which
proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too
favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations
to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their
fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the
common opposition to the measure.
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate
is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ
Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an
arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of
Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an
unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not
requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say
that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion
itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the
powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is
known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only
without the support of human laws, but in spite of every
opposition from them, and not only during the period of
miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own
evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a
contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human
policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it
was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in
those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its
innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to
foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its
friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its
own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical
establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy
of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost
fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all
places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and
persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the
ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of
every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with
Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in
which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their
flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought
their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when
against their interest?
8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for
the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary
for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of
supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter
purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be
not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its
legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What
influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on
Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect
a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in
many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of
political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the
guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to
subvert the public liberty, may have found an established
Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to
secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will
be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment
of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his
person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights
of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of
another.
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that
generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted
and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre
to our country, and an accession to the number of its
citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden
degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the
persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades
from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in
Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority.
Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition,
it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step,
the other the last in the career of intolerance. The
magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign
Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning
him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy
in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his
Troubles.
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our
Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are
every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to
emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would
be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and
depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which
the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has
produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been
spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm,
to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference
in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true
remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy,
wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the
disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal
and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it,
sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health
and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of
this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the
bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too
severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at
the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very
appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian
forbearance, love and charity," [Virginia Declaration of
Rights, art. 16] which of late mutually prevailed, into
animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased.
What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the
public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion
of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who
enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted
to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who
have as yet received it with the number still remaining under
the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former!
Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?
No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the
light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and
countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness,
in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of
Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious
progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian
timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against
the encroachments of error.
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts
obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to
enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of
Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not
generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case,
where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the
effect of so striking an example of impotency in the
Government, on its general authority?
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy
ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it
is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory
method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in
this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The
people of the respective counties are indeed requested to
signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to
the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be
made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or
of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that
neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse
the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event
disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that
a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against
our liberties.
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 our 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 consult 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. Either then, we must
say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of
their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority,
they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they
are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred:
Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the
press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the
Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may
despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves
into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say,
that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under
consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General
Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that
no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an
usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly
praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of
the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed,
may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which
would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust
committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every
measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to
their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties,
the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.
--------------
-- End Text --
--------------
::PDWF USENET Release - 2005.06.27
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
