Religions > Atheism > Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 06:33:59 AM |
| Object: |
Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics
by Martin E. Marty
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=182
[excerpt[
"It is one of the striking facts of American history that the American
Revolution was led by men who were not very religious," wrote Gordon Wood
in New York History. "At the best the Founding Fathers only passively
believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned and ridiculed
it." When asked why the Constitution did not mention God, Alexander
Hamilton is said to have answered, "We forgot."
As a major interpreter of our country's founding, Wood reflects the
influence of his teacher Bernard Bailyn, who in two important new volumes
provides the best general access to the period in which the Founding
Fathers -- yes, they were all men -- debated their Constitution of 1787 and
sold themselves, each other and the public on its ratification. This
generous sampling of the argument helps contemporary readers assess the
religious and metaphysical foundations and contentions of their thought.
Northwestern University law professor Stephen Presser has said that "at
first blush, it would appear that none but the truly weird would find these
two new volumes ... compulsive late-night page-turners." But I joined him
in the company of the weird by marking all the references that could be
construed as religious. I began at the outer limits with what I call the
"sacral penumbra" of nondescript and rather noncommittal incidental
references. (These do not include the more frequent and clear references in
the sustained arguments discussed later in this essay.) My marker found
three favorites: at least 30 "Heavens," as in "merciful Heaven," and 15 or
20 "blessings of heaven"; there were 15 usually casual "sacreds," as in
"sacred liberties." God comes up often, but almost never in biblical terms;
"God," we remember, was generic for deists and theists, philosophers and
believers alike. In one instance in this collection, one John Smilie quotes
the Declaration of Independence on the Creator. Beyond that, in these two
lengthy volumes there are about 20 references to God, while the Almighty
and the Creator make single cameo appearances. We read at least seven times
of Providence; the Supremes are here four times, as in Supreme Being and
Supreme Ruler of the Universe; Lord, as in "O Lord!" or "the Year of Our
Lord," turns up six times, and there is a Sovereign Ruler of Events, one
Grace, two Governors (of the World and the Universe),two Nature's Gods,
and, for good measure, one Goddess of Liberty. Whether the general absence
of the biblical God is intentional or reflects the habits of the
Enlightenment, it is significant.
On one occasion, vox populi is identified with vox dei, a questionable
theological concept, to be sure. Once, people are called "the sole
governours (under God)," and I spotted another "under God" in connection
with George Washington. Writers also refer to "the immutable laws of God
and " reason," and "the laws of nature and nature's God." The citation of
the Bible as authority is extremely rare. Once Benjamin Rush deals
abstractly with "reason and revelation," and John Dickinson cites Holy
Scriptures on perfect liberty and speaks of "the inspired Apostle Saint
Paul." The latter is one of the most charged references in the two volumes;
Dickinson uses I Corinthians 12 on the body of Christ as an analogy for
"the benefits of union" in the republic. As for human nature, only once do.
I recall spotting the word "sin." Calvin's God was far back in the wings in
this Enlightenment-era discourse.
For a people putatively schooled in scripture, these arguers use relatively
few biblical allusions. I counted three references to Moses. In Noah
Webster's citation, Moses gets paired with Fohi and Confucius, Zamolxis and
Odin and other "fabled demi-gods of antiquty" In another citation Moses
joins Montesquieu as a representative genius. There are other casual
allusions to the Bible, but they are slight and quickly dropped.
[end excerpt]
I recommend the entire article be read.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "cartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
09 Sep 2006 12:33:03 PM |
|
|
Martin Marty's highly biased nonsense (below) is easily seen for what
it is in light of more sober, objective, information provided by
professional historians.
See, e.g., http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics
by Martin E. Marty
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3D182
[excerpt[
"It is one of the striking facts of American history that the American
Revolution was led by men who were not very religious," wrote Gordon Wood
in New York History. "At the best the Founding Fathers only passively
believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned and ridiculed
it." When asked why the Constitution did not mention God, Alexander
Hamilton is said to have answered, "We forgot."
As a major interpreter of our country's founding, Wood reflects the
influence of his teacher Bernard Bailyn, who in two important new volumes
provides the best general access to the period in which the Founding
Fathers -- yes, they were all men -- debated their Constitution of 1787 a=
nd
sold themselves, each other and the public on its ratification. This
generous sampling of the argument helps contemporary readers assess the
religious and metaphysical foundations and contentions of their thought.
Northwestern University law professor Stephen Presser has said that "at
first blush, it would appear that none but the truly weird would find the=
se
two new volumes ... compulsive late-night page-turners." But I joined him
in the company of the weird by marking all the references that could be
construed as religious. I began at the outer limits with what I call the
"sacral penumbra" of nondescript and rather noncommittal incidental
references. (These do not include the more frequent and clear references =
in
the sustained arguments discussed later in this essay.) My marker found
three favorites: at least 30 "Heavens," as in "merciful Heaven," and 15 or
20 "blessings of heaven"; there were 15 usually casual "sacreds," as in
"sacred liberties." God comes up often, but almost never in biblical term=
s;
"God," we remember, was generic for deists and theists, philosophers and
believers alike. In one instance in this collection, one John Smilie quot=
es
the Declaration of Independence on the Creator. Beyond that, in these two
lengthy volumes there are about 20 references to God, while the Almighty
and the Creator make single cameo appearances. We read at least seven tim=
es
of Providence; the Supremes are here four times, as in Supreme Being and
Supreme Ruler of the Universe; Lord, as in "O Lord!" or "the Year of Our
Lord," turns up six times, and there is a Sovereign Ruler of Events, one
Grace, two Governors (of the World and the Universe),two Nature's Gods,
and, for good measure, one Goddess of Liberty. Whether the general absence
of the biblical God is intentional or reflects the habits of the
Enlightenment, it is significant.
On one occasion, vox populi is identified with vox dei, a questionable
theological concept, to be sure. Once, people are called "the sole
governours (under God)," and I spotted another "under God" in connection
with George Washington. Writers also refer to "the immutable laws of God
and " reason," and "the laws of nature and nature's God." The citation of
the Bible as authority is extremely rare. Once Benjamin Rush deals
abstractly with "reason and revelation," and John Dickinson cites Holy
Scriptures on perfect liberty and speaks of "the inspired Apostle Saint
Paul." The latter is one of the most charged references in the two volume=
s;
Dickinson uses I Corinthians 12 on the body of Christ as an analogy for
"the benefits of union" in the republic. As for human nature, only once d=
o=2E
I recall spotting the word "sin." Calvin's God was far back in the wings =
in
this Enlightenment-era discourse.
For a people putatively schooled in scripture, these arguers use relative=
ly
few biblical allusions. I counted three references to Moses. In Noah
Webster's citation, Moses gets paired with Fohi and Confucius, Zamolxis a=
nd
Odin and other "fabled demi-gods of antiquty" In another citation Moses
joins Montesquieu as a representative genius. There are other casual
allusions to the Bible, but they are slight and quickly dropped.
[end excerpt]
I recommend the entire article be read.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . 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. Eisne=
r,
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
10 Sep 2006 08:52:29 AM |
|
|
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Martin Marty's highly biased nonsense (below) is easily seen for what
:|it is in light of more sober, objective, information provided by
:|professional historians.
:|
You offered this first
"cartman" [AKA r. gardiner AKA ambrose searle AKA cartmanesq] wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics
:|>
:|> For a people putatively schooled in scripture, these arguers use relatively
:|> few biblical allusions.
:|
:|Marty's anecdotal reading of the founders is amateurish in comparison
:|to Donald Lutz's quantitative study of the comprehensive writings of
:|the founders. Lutz' quantitative study shows that the "biblical
:|allusions" outnumbered all other citations by a rather wide margin.
:|Martin Marty is simply wrong.
:|
:|Charles S. Hyneman and Donald Lutz, "The Relative Influence of European
:|Political Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political
:|Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), pp. 189-197.
and I shot that down with this
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/449304f96d14d9b3?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F29451CBD
Now you offer this and I can easily shoot it down with this
:|See, e.g., http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
*********************************************************************
Interesting observation (buckeye)
Have We Been Defeated?
An observation.
What could not be done by force of war has been accomplished by deceit, no
less so than that the enemy had goose-stepped into our National Capital and
took control of our Government.
This defeat is evident in many Departments of Government, but none more so
than the Library of Congress. The current Exhibit at the Library of
Congress Web site entitled “RELIGION AND THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN
REPUBLIC” is sheer Christian propaganda as it excludes entirely the full
scope of religious opinions that was rampant during the Revolutionary
period, and the fact that non-Christian beliefs had more to do with the
Founding of our Nation than did Christian beliefs.
The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States were all a direct product of the
Enlightenment; a period of history when religious skepticism and scientific
investigation was supreme. The peoples of Europe was awakening from the
nightmare of oppressive Monarchies, and even more oppressive mystical
religions. And the people of America, with their glorious and successful
Revolution against the mightiest Monarchy on Earth, Great Britain at that
time, led the way toward a brighter world where people was to be free of
kings and priests.
It was not the pen or preaching of Christian Divines that brought about the
American Revolution, but the stirring words of a plain spoken pamphlet from
the pen of Thomas Paine that turned the mind of the American Colonists from
a simple redress of grievances to the demand for separation and the
beginning of a new Nation. Historians know, and Honest Historians admit,
that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, ‘Common Sense,’ forcefully turned the minds
of the American Colonists toward Separation as copies of that Work spread
across the land. Almost all leaders of the American Revolution admit that
the Revolution was attributable to Thomas Paine; THOMAS JEFFERSON to
William Carver Monticello, December 4, 1823, said "I thank you, Sir, for
the unedited letter of Thomas Paine which you had been so kind as to send
me. I recognize in it the strong pen and dauntless mind of Common Sense,
which, among the numerous pamphlets written on the occasion, so
preeminently united us in our revolutionary opposition." But the name
Common Sense does not even appear in the Library of Congress Christian
propaganda series on ‘Religion and the Founding of the Republic’!
The Library of Congress could not admit that the Writings of Mr. Paine, the
Deist, was the great engine that brought about the American Revolution.
Thomas Paine then saved the Revolution with his Crisis Series; his writings
inspired the French Revolution, caused the general fall of Monarchy and
brought us into the modern world. The Works of Thomas Paine the outspoken
Deist who, in his irrefutable ‘Age of Reason,’ demolished the foundations
of the Christian religion, could not be remembered in the Libraries
propaganda series or the theme that the Christian religion motivated and
drive the Revolution to success would fall apart. And fall it should, for
it is a great lie.
The Library of Congress admits that “Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are
usually considered the leading American deists,” then goes on to say “Other
founders of the American republic, including George Washington, are
frequently identified as deists, although the evidence supporting such
judgements is often thin.” Well, now, ‘Mr. Library of Congress’ let us see
how thin the evidence for George Washington being a Deist really is – when
we look at the evidence we see that Gen. Washington being a Deist is a well
established historic fact. At the end of this essay I will add a chapter
from an extensive study of the religious beliefs of six great American
leaders, the chapter I include presents the facts regarding Gen.
Washington’s religious beliefs and refers to the rejection of the Christian
religion by most all the Founding Fathers.
But the Library of Congress is not the only trusted National Institution
that perverts history for the benefit of the religion (Priestcraft) that
has undermined our Government.
The last Memorial to a Founding Father constructed in Washington, D.C. was
the Jefferson Memorial and, as Christianity had already undermined the
Secular foundations of the American Government, that Memorial reflects the
pious fraud inherent in all “supernatural” religions.
Around the Rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial in large letters are the
words; “I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Oh, how pious and Christian that
statement sounds – before you realize that the statement was taken
completely out of context, and means just the opposite of what it seems to
mean. This quote was taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr.
Benjamin Rush in 1800 when Jefferson was running for President of the
United States, and the Christian clergy was circulating pamphlets saying
that no Christian should vote for Jefferson because he was an infidel. The
entire paragraph from Jefferson’s letter reads: “They (the clergy) believe
that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to
their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of
God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me; and enough too in their
opinion."
So we see from the whole quote, that the tyranny over the mind of man that
Jefferson was writing about was really the schemes of the Christian clergy.
When one is aware of the frauds of organized religion one sees such
corruption of truth as the inscription on the Jefferson Memorial, and the
religious propaganda issued by the Library of Congress, as final proof that
we have been deceived and defeated; that the grand Ideals that this Nation
was founded upon have been undermined and corrupted by what some are
pleased to call “religion.”
Christianity, like all oppressive political systems, revises and perverts
history for its own benefit and purpose whenever it has the power to do so.
Had the Nazis won World War II our history books would tell us that Adolph
Hitler was the savior and hero of humanity, and the atrocities of the
Holocaust would be hidden and denied.
Honest Historians, about the turn of the twentieth Century, begin to notice
the emergence of what they called “the New History.” This was “revised”
history that glossed over, or denied, the real facts of history that were
not complementary to the Christian religion, and replaced those facts of
history with falsehoods to the contrary. At first this ‘New History’ was
rejected with scorn, just as is the assertions today that the Holocaust
never happened, but if the lie is repeated long and often enough it will be
accepted as truth. And so we have today a breed of history books that have
but little resemblance to the great scholarly histories of the past that
regarded fact as the only object of a work of history.
In view of that modern corruption of history, this writer has determined to
devote his time and efforts to saving and reproducing the old scholarly,
factual, books that are so rapidly disappearing from our society. No man
(or woman) can better devote his life.
Emmett F. Fields
February 1999
Bank of Wisdom
Bank of Wisdom gathers, preserves and distributes the Greatest and
Grandest thoughts of Mankind, we scorn no opinions, censor no ideas
of serious thought that might Enlighten, Elevate and Emancipate
mankind.
We take it as our Patriotic duty to Humanity to again make the United
States the Free Market Place of Ideas that the American Founding
Fathers originally intended this Nation to be.
Emmett F. Fields
Bank of Wisdom
L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,
soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.us-revolution/msg/9a7848342f0e0882?output=gplain
From:
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
rgardi...@my-deja.com wrote:
:|The fact that Buckeye thinks that the scholars at the library of congress responsible for the Religion >:|and the Founding exhibit
:| http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
:|are all right-wing cronies of Pat Robertson, is clear evidence that Buckeye is far more of a
:|political hothead than a sober-minded historian interested in the facts of history.
[Mike Curtis comment to Gardiner's comments above:]
I've been to the exhibit in person and found a great many errors. As
with most things in Washington, D.C., there usually is an interest
group behind any display.
====================================================
[My previous encounter with this topic and Gardiner]
3/13/99
Gardiner <Gardi...@pitnet.net> wrote:
The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
:|(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean that
:|all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist Christians?
[I responded]
I have seen the online presentation of the library of Congress, I also have
a copy of the companion book that goes with that exhibit and I can say that
it is extremely one sided and biased. The book and apparently the research
and planning of the of the exhibit was primarily under the head of James H.
Huston and from what I have seen thus far and read thus far I would say he
did or does have an agenda that is not neutral.
Now if you want to check out some other opinions on this subject I suggest
you check out:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Copyright William Edelen
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/edelin-lib-congrs.html
and
Tearing Down Jefferson's Oath, John Patrick Michael Murphy
Copyright 1998
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/murphy-jeffersons-oath.html
They are short articles but gives you an alternative viewpoint, not that I
think you really want one.
[Gardiner wrote:]
:|
:|I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of
:|history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
:|data which is overwhelmingly evident.
:|
[I replied]
You dost protest too much.
===================================================
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Provided by
Glen P.Goffin
Lt.Col. USAF (Ret)
------------------------------------------------------------
First Amendment Scholars Challenge Library of Congress
Claims on Jefferson Letter Regarding "Wall"
http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/loc_jeffWall.html
(The above URL also has the letter the scholars wrote to the LOC, and the
list of scholars who signed off on it---Buckeye)
==========================
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/public.html
Public Programs on
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
The exhibition and related programs are made possible by generous grants
from The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith, and the
Lilly Endowment Inc.
------ ------- ------- ------ ---------
The Pew Charitable Trusts,
Religion and the Public Square: Religious Grantmaking at The Pew Charitable
Trusts
http://www.pewtrusts.com/Frame.cfm?Framesource=programs/philly.cfm
One of the three Exhibit sponsors has a primary aim in the field of
religion, "...to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American
Christians..." (Not exactly the most unifying aim in a pluralistic,
democratic, republic containing numerous non-Christian religions and many
with no religious faith beliefs at all.)
-------- -------- ------- --------
Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith,
http://www.ncpa.org/about/bsmith.html
Henry J. Smith, is Chairman Emeritus for Clark/Bardes, Inc. Dallas,
Texas. Clark/Bardes is an executive compensation firm with offices in most
major cities throughout the country. Clark/Bardes has client relationships
with over 150 major U.S. and international companies.
Smith graduated from University of New Mexico. He served in world
War II and the Korean War. Smith, has been committed to various civic,
religious and political activities. They are as follows:
Founding and Board Member of the Trinity Forum
(The Trinity Forum is a leadership academy that helps leaders engage the
key issues of their personal and public lives in the context of faith.
http://www.ttf.org/ ---- Buckeye)
Member of the James Madison National Council (Library of
Congress)
Board Member of the National Center for Policy Analysis
(NCPA)
Founding and Current Member of the International Forum
Vice Chairman and Board Member of the International
Linguistics Society
Member of the Dallas Roundtable for CSIS
Mr. Smith resides in Dallas, Texas. He has been married to the
former Jane Munns of Winnetka, Illinois since 1952.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The second of the three sponsors is also the founder and board
member of an organization "that helps leaders engage the key issues of
their personal and public lives in the context of faith." (It does not say
what that faith must be. Hardly non-discriminatory.) Additionally, this
nonprofit, nontaxed, organization "fosters strategic programs and
publications that further its mission: to contribute to the transformation
and renewal of society through the transformation and renewal of national
leaders." (But apparently only leaders of faith. And whose faith belief
might that be?) It was interesting to note that this same individual is
also a Member of the James Madison National Council-LOC
-------------------------------------------------
the Lilly Endowment Inc.
http://www.indepsec.org/pathfinder/resources/foundations/lil_end.html
(The Lilly Endowment Inc. Created in 1937, Lilly Endowment Inc. is a
private philanthropic foundation based in Indianapolis, IN. It supports the
causes of religion, education, and community development, and it is
interested in initiatives that benefit youth, foster leadership education
among nonprofit institutions, and promote the causes of
philanthropy and volunteerism.
While the Endowment's grantmaking focuses primarily on
Indiana, it also provides funding for programs that are national
in scope. -- Buckeye)
================================================
In March, 1998, the Religious Freedom Amendment cleared the House
Judiciary Committee in a 16-11 vote, and was marked up for action by the
full House. It was a high water point in the efforts to overturn years of
state-church separation decisions, many of which continually cited
Jefferson's "wall of separation" reference in the Danbury letter. The
proposal would have eviscerated the First Amendment, particularly the
establishment clause, by legalizing a wide range of religious expression in
public schools, government meetings and other secular venues. It also would
have taken the giant step of qualifying faith-based groups for public
funding, by making it illegal to deny churches, mosques, temples and other
religious organizations a "benefit." The Religious Freedom Amendment was
soon scheduled for quick debate and a vote on or about June 4, 1998.
With the vote on the RFA looming, why was an academic curiosity
suddenly ignited into a national controversy, one linking Jefferson's
letter with the upcoming ballot on the Religious Freedom Amendment? Media
such as the "New York Times" and the "Washington Times" printed public
statements by Dr. James H. Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division at the
Library of Congress concerning the Danbury letter. Hutson noted that an
early draft of Jefferson's letter had sections crossed out with ink. What
was under the cross outs? Hutson wondered. After consulting with James
Billington, the Librarian of Congress, Hutson sent the draft over to the
FBI Forensics Laboratory, which had developed techniques of highlighting
inked-over sections on manuscripts. The technique had been employed
successfully earlier in examining diaries penned by President Theodore
Roosevelt.
The results of the FBI examination were interesting. An inked-over
portion revealed that Jefferson had made reference to a " wall of eternal
separation" between government and religion. The Library of Congress report
on this development, though, written by Hutson claimed that Jefferson
invented the "wall" analogy as a means of fending off political attacks by
his opponents. The news was gleefully reported in the "Washington Times,"
which quoted Hutson as claiming that two days after penning the Danbury
Baptist letter, Jefferson supposedly began attending weekly worship inside
the House of Representatives. "That phrase about the wall doesn't mean much
in light of his behavior, does it,?" Hutson remarked.
Coincident with the revelations about the Danbury letter, the
Library of Congress also opened an exhibit entitled "Religion and the
Founding of the American Republican."
Enter Pat Robertson & Co.
The revelations about the Danbury letter, and the questionable spin
reportedly made by Hutson, quickly attracted the interest of religious
right groups which were in the midst of a last-minute pitch to build
support for the Religious Freedom Amendment. Within 72 hours of the RFA
vote, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition swung into action; executive
director Randy Tate issued a media statement claiming that the Library of
Congress had "skewered (sic) the wall of separation" reference made by
Jefferson. Tate also urged people to visit the Library's new exhibit on the
role played by religion in American history. In an interview with AANEWS,
Hutson expressed dismay that the Coalition was trying to capitalize on the
Jefferson letter finds for political gain, and denied any agenda to use the
Library of Congress in supporting the Religious Freedom Amendment. He also
noted that it was odd that Mr. Tate could be endorsing and describing the
exhibit, since it opened AFTER the Coalition press release was sent out.
But the RFA fared well in the House, gaining a majority of votes -- thought
still short of the necessary 2/3 margin for passage as a constitutional
amendment.
====================================================
Many thanks to
Glen P.Goffin
Lt.Col. USAF (Ret)
for providing the above information and URLs.
Your knowledge of history might be well founded but your presentation of
same in these newsgroups is pure theocratic propaganda.
Bottom line, your 15 minutes of infamy in the UseNet Newsgroups in these
particular newsgroups has long ago passed.
No one cares much for your silly childish games or what you might have to
say. Your time has passed,
You might as well poof into the woodwork again.
BTW did Washington say "So Help Me God" when he was sworn in as president?
I see you don't dare answer the above question. :O)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "cartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
10 Sep 2006 01:24:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
the Library of Congress is not the only trusted National Institution
that perverts history for the benefit of the religion
Oh, I love it. It really shows just how much of a whacko conspiracy
theorist you truly are.
The Library of Congress is a perverter of history on behalf of the
radical religious right!!! LOL.
By you posting this crazy idea that Pat Robertson is the defacto
curator of the Library of Congress collection, you truly make your
entire point of view entirely ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
15 Sep 2006 05:58:06 AM |
|
|
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> the Library of Congress is not the only trusted National Institution
:|> that perverts history for the benefit of the religion
:|
:|Oh, I love it. It really shows just how much of a whacko conspiracy
:|theorist you truly are.
:|
:|The Library of Congress is a perverter of history on behalf of the
:|radical religious right!!! LOL.
:|
:|By you posting this crazy idea that Pat Robertson is the defacto
:|curator of the Library of Congress collection, you truly make your
:|entire point of view entirely ridiculous.
Gee guy, as usual you forget to actually disprove any point made in the
post
Ladies and Gentlemen!!!!!
We have on the one side This poster with his smoke screen
"cart man" <matrilinearly@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Oh, I love it. It really shows just how much of a whacko conspiracy
:|theorist you truly are.
:|
:|The Library of Congress is a perverter of history on behalf of the
:|radical religious right!!! LOL.
:|
:|By you posting this crazy idea that Pat Robertson is the defacto
:|curator of the Library of Congress collection, you truly make your
:|entire point of view entirely ridiculous.
and on the other side we have 24 respected scholars
First Amendment Scholars Challenge Library of Congress
Claims on Jefferson Letter Regarding "Wall"
http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/loc_jeffWall.html
(The above URL also has the letter the scholars wrote to the LOC, and the
list of scholars who signed off on it---Buckeye)
along with the rest of this
L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,
soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.us-revolution/msg/9a7848342f0e0882?output=gplain
Your knowledge of history might be well founded but your presentation of
same in these newsgroups is pure theocratic propaganda.
Bottom line, your 15 minutes of fame or infamy oin the UseNet Newsgroups in
these particular newsgroups and this particular topic has long ago passed.
No one cares much for your silly childish games or what you might have to
say. Your time has passed,
You might as well poof into the woodwork again.
BTW did Washington say "So Help Me God" when he was sworn in as president?
I see you don't dare answer the above question. :O)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "cartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
16 Sep 2006 01:16:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
BTW did Washington say "So Help Me God" when he was sworn in as president?
I see you don't dare answer the above question. :O)
Remind me again of that citation in Madison's convention notes that
shows that the founding fathers came within ONE VOTE of abolishing the
states altogether... Remember, that claim that you've insisted upon
several times?
And speaking of James Madison, why don't you back up your friend, Rev.
Draccus (the ordained wiccan priest), who insists that Madison declared
he was a deist? Why don't you provide the citation in Madison's works
where he wrote, "I declare I am a deist"? Or why don't you cite the
"basic high school history textbook" where Draccus claims one can find
the proof that Madison declared himself to be a deist?
Note that Draccus was waiting for you to come to his rescue, and when
you didn't, he ran.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
25 Nov 2006 07:55:44 AM |
|
|
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>
:|> BTW did Washington say "So Help Me God" when he was sworn in as president?
:|>
:|> I see you don't dare answer the above question. :O)
:|
:|Remind me again of that citation in Madison's convention notes that
:|shows that the founding fathers came within ONE VOTE of abolishing the
:|states altogether... Remember, that claim that you've insisted upon
:|several times?
:|
:|And speaking of James Madison, why don't you back up your friend, Rev.
:|Draccus (the ordained wiccan priest), who insists that Madison declared
:|he was a deist? Why don't you provide the citation in Madison's works
:|where he wrote, "I declare I am a deist"? Or why don't you cite the
:|"basic high school history textbook" where Draccus claims one can find
:|the proof that Madison declared himself to be a deist?
:|
:|Note that Draccus was waiting for you to come to his rescue, and when
:|you didn't, he ran.
What an imagination you have
You can pretend it doesn't happen all you want. You can hope others do not
notice it Ruchard, but the fact is, more times than not I reply to your
crap with substantentive data. What I don't do it humor you by playing the
newsgroup games you so like to play on line.
I have no need to join you in such.
Have a nice holiday dude
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
01 Dec 2006 12:08:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Or why don't you cite the
:|"basic high school history textbook" where Draccus claims one can find
:|the proof that Madison declared himself to be a deist?
What an imagination you have
You can pretend it doesn't happen all you want. You can hope others do not
notice it Ruchard, but the fact is, more times than not I reply to your
crap with substantentive data.
Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
deist. You can't do it and you know it.
What you will do, if anything, is post all sorts of material about
Madison, and a whole lot of links to your website that DO NOT SAY
MADISON DECLARED HE WAS A DEIST.
That's one of your most predictable games: you pretend like you're
answering a challenge, a question, but really all you do is post mounds
of digital data that avoids the question.
You make take satisfaction in that tactic; but anyone who actually
follows the discussion and has a modicum of common sense will see
exactly what you do. It's one of the main reasons you'll never be taken
seriously by those who really matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
01 Dec 2006 06:06:42 PM |
|
|
<ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164996525.890852.262740@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| wrote:
| > "cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| > >:|Or why don't you cite the
| > >:|"basic high school history textbook" where Draccus claims one can
find
| > >:|the proof that Madison declared himself to be a deist?
| >
| > What an imagination you have
| >
| > You can pretend it doesn't happen all you want. You can hope others do
not
| > notice it Ruchard, but the fact is, more times than not I reply to your
| > crap with substantentive data.
|
| Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
| deist. You can't do it and you know it.
|
| What you will do, if anything, is post all sorts of material about
| Madison, and a whole lot of links to your website that DO NOT SAY
| MADISON DECLARED HE WAS A DEIST.
|
| That's one of your most predictable games: you pretend like you're
| answering a challenge, a question, but really all you do is post mounds
| of digital data that avoids the question.
|
| You make take satisfaction in that tactic; but anyone who actually
| follows the discussion and has a modicum of common sense will see
| exactly what you do. It's one of the main reasons you'll never be taken
| seriously by those who really matter.
this madison (james?)
James Madison, in an 1803 letter complaining about using public land
for churches, wrote "The purpose of separation of church and state is
to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked
the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." In 1774, he wrote
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise."
or this madison?
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every
noble enterprise."
"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." -- source:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY)
quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison,
A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974,
Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious
Assessments by JM, June 1785.
or this madison?
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington, Franklin,
Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
Unitarians or the Deists. it was not Cotton Mather's God to whom the author
of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it was to 'Nature's God.' From
whatever source derived, the effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to
hasten the retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere for secular
interests" -- source:
The Rise of American Civilization," by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol.
I., p. 449.)
officially he declared himself episcopalian...what is important to note here
is how fervent his belief in the seperation of church and state! it was
quite evident through his own writings that he held religion with passionate
distain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
06 Dec 2006 09:30:18 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:
:|
:|<ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|news:1164996525.890852.262740@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:|| wrote:
:|| > "cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|| >
:|| > >:|Or why don't you cite the
:|| > >:|"basic high school history textbook" where Draccus claims one can
:|find
:|| > >:|the proof that Madison declared himself to be a deist?
:|| >
:|| > What an imagination you have
:|| >
:|| > You can pretend it doesn't happen all you want. You can hope others do
:|not
:|| > notice it Ruchard, but the fact is, more times than not I reply to your
:|| > crap with substantentive data.
:||
:|| Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
:|| deist. You can't do it and you know it.
:||
:|| What you will do, if anything, is post all sorts of material about
:|| Madison, and a whole lot of links to your website that DO NOT SAY
:|| MADISON DECLARED HE WAS A DEIST.
:||
:|| That's one of your most predictable games: you pretend like you're
:|| answering a challenge, a question, but really all you do is post mounds
:|| of digital data that avoids the question.
:||
:|| You make take satisfaction in that tactic; but anyone who actually
:|| follows the discussion and has a modicum of common sense will see
:|| exactly what you do. It's one of the main reasons you'll never be taken
:|| seriously by those who really matter.
:|
:|this madison (james?)
:|
:|James Madison, in an 1803 letter complaining about using public land
:|for churches, wrote "The purpose of separation of church and state is
:|to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked
:|the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." In 1774, he wrote
I note tthat you do not give a cite for the above.
I think maybe it migth be becauseit isn't a valid quote from Madison
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:48:19 -0500
To:
From: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Hot one
Hi Jim,
I just ran across a Sec Web thread where the following quote is
being discussed. If you have a moment, and have any additional info, I
would like to post it. If not, then I guess I have a new surfing challenge.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104778
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever
from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe
in blood for centuries." -- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of
government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000
Years of Disbelief
I have contacted the editor of the James Madison Papers, and the author of
the book listed above, and neither of them were able to find the source of
that quote. The only sources I can find on the internet have the
description listed above or less. Does anyone here know anything about it?
One more, of many, big thanks for any info.
Glen
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
From:
To: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Hot one
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:57:17 -0500
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:48:19 -0500, you wrote:
:| Hi Jim,
:|
:| I just ran across a Sec Web thread where the following quote is
:|being discussed. If you have a moment, and have any additional info, I
:|would like to post it. If not, then I guess I have a new surfing challenge.
:|
:| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:|
:| http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104778
:|
:| "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever
:|from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe
:|in blood for centuries." -- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of
:|government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000
:|Years of Disbelief
:|
:|I have contacted the editor of the James Madison Papers, and the author of
:|the book listed above, and neither of them were able to find the source of
:|that quote. The only sources I can find on the internet have the
:|description listed above or less. Does anyone here know anything about it?
:|
:| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's bogus.
-----------------------
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in
blood for centuries."
----James Madison, 1803,
----letter objecting to the use of government land for churches,
----quoted from James A. Haught, ed., "2000 Years of Disbelief"
========================================
:|"The purpose of separation of church and state is
:|to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife
:|that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for
:|centuries." - James Madison
Until such a time as someone provides a complete and proper cite for the
above quote it has to be viewed with high suspicion.
One version does give this as a cite but never identified the mysterious
letter
-- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of government land for
churches, 1803.
The objection for government land was in a veto by Madison in 1811.
=====================================
An email to me concerning this quote 6 years ago:
From:
Subject: James Madison quote
To:
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
X-UIDL: b9bf9f827e7bb306c39b58d46e632c63
JIM:
Does this quote ring a bell with you? I have heard it before, but I'll be
darned if I can actually find it in any of Madison's writings. Do you know
if it's legitimate?
<----Forwarded Message ---->
From:
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:11:28 -0500 (EST)
To:
cc:
Subject: James Madison quote
Hi,
We're trying to find the source of the following quote from James Madison,
used by Molly Ivins: "The purpose of the separation of church and state is
to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the
soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Can you help? Or give us to someone who might know? Thanks.
Leslie Williams
Executive Director
ACLU of Vermont
-----------------------------
Rob Boston
Assistant Director of Communications
Americans United
boston@au.org
(202) 466-3234
==================================
I emailed back at that time that I had no record of any such quote.
In addition he also was told the same thing by Prof. Robert S. Alley:
Editor of James Madison on Religious Liberty Promethrus Books (1998)
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Subject: Re: James Madison quote
To:
Jim:
Thanks for your help with that Madison "quote." I touched base with Bob
Alley (who is one of our trustees) and he also could not confirm it. I
e-mailed the folks in Vermont and recommended they do not use the quote.
-----------------------------
Rob Boston
Assistant Director of Communications
Americans United
boston@au.org
(202) 466-3234
=========================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:07:34 -0800 (PST)
From: richard whitner
Subject: verification of a madison quote
To:
Hi Mr. Allison,
First, I wanted to say that I love your site.. it has been a very valuable
resource for me over the past few years. But now, down to business...
there is a James Madison quote floating around the internet, that I believe
may be erroneous. The most extensive description I can find of it is from
positiveatheism.com, as follows:
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in
blood for centuries." -- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of
government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000
Years of Disbelief
I have contacted the editor of the James Madison Papers, and the author of
the book listed above, and neither of them were able to find the source of
that quote. The only sources I can find on the internet have the
description listed above or less. I thought maybe you might know something
about it, or if it is unverifiable, that you could add it to your
'problematic quotes' page.
thanks for your time,
richard
****************************************************************************
[me again]
Madison did object to the use of government land for churches in one of his
vetoes in 1811.
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
************************************************************************************
The only thing in 1803 is this, and it doesn't apply
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both houses.... as soon as the senate
shall have advised its ratification"; see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.], The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton
Smith, Vol. II, 1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London,
(1995) pp 1297-98)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only known refercnes to separaiton in the writings of Madison are the
following:
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
:|One more, of many, big thanks for any info.
:|
:|Glen
:|
No Problem.
jim
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:01:53 -0500
To:
From: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Just info
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2000285&posted=1#post2000285
(Post # 23)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLD
I sent an email to Mr. Haught on the quotation, and he informed me that he
could not find his source for the quote in his voluminous notes. He did
however state that Molly Ivins had used the quote in one of her columns in
the 1990's and had seen it also on the web.
It seems that as far back as June, 1991, the "Columbia Journalism Review"
had suspicions on the authenticity of the quote:
Quote:
More of us need to read Madison on the reason for the separation of church
and state: "To keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has
soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." * * Ivins says
broadcaster John Henry Faulk, since deceased, gave her the quote and
attribution. CJR's researcher and two interns spent hours trying to track
it down, in vain. We leave it as is, inviting confirmation or correction.
<http://archives.cjr.org/year/91/6/shush.asp>http://archives.cjr.org/year/91/6/shush.asp
So it would seem that both Ivins and Haught used the quote provided earlier
from Faulk.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
02 Dec 2006 12:20:19 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
| Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
| deist. You can't do it and you know it.
this madison (james?)
James Madison, in an 1803 letter complaining about using public land
for churches, wrote "The purpose of separation of church and state is
to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked
the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." In 1774, he wrote
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise."
I couldn't find in what you have said above where Madison declared he
was a Deist. Please be more explicit.
What he does seem to say in the quote you are providing is exactly what
Martin Luther said when he developed the "two-kingdoms" doctrine in the
16th century (viz., separation of church and state).
Are you going to tell me that Martin Luther was also a deist and a
hater of religion?
Yes, indeed, Luther also hated "religious bondage" which "shackles the
mind." That's no proof he was a deist.
or this madison?
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every
noble enterprise."
"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."
Again, an echo of Martin Luther.
Hey, maybe there is a reason why Madison sounded like he borrowed his
thinking from Martin Luther.
How about this:
"the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction [church v.
state], to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between
what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge
of both obligations."
James Madison to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 23, 1821.
or this madison?
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington, Franklin,
Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
Unitarians or the Deists.
Uh, that's not a quote from Madison. That's a quote from the Marxist
historian Charles Beard.
officially he declared himself episcopalian.
Thanks for the honesty. You have told the truth. Madison was also
sympathetic to Presbyterianism insofar as he went to Seminary at
Princeton in preparation for the ministry (source: Dr. James Smylie,
"James Madison's Presbyterian Connection," PRESBYTERIAN HERITAGE,
7/2/2001)
..what is important to note here
is how fervent his belief in the seperation of church and state!
Sure. Almost as fervent as the Baptist Roger Williams, eh? The point is
that a fervent belief in separation of church and state says nothing
about one being a deist.
it was
quite evident through his own writings that he held religion with passionate
distain.
He held established religion with disdain. Personally, he was quite
devoted to religion.
As a matter of fact, one of the main reasons that Madison was such a
strong proponent of separation of church and state, is that he said it
nurtured a stronger religious devotion among the people and the
ministers (SOURCE: Madison to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Writing to Edward Everett, Madison explained how separating church and
state made the Episcopal church grow!:
"Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law
in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all
other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much
more of religion among us now than there ever was before the
change; and particularly in the Sect [episcopalians] which enjoyed the
legal patronage.
This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the
support of religion."
Now if Madison had passionate disdain for religion (as you claim), such
as episcopalianism, he would not be championing a strategy that he
believed would make it PROSPER!
You really are a buffoon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
02 Dec 2006 12:50:07 PM |
|
|
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165083619.775761.300770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
| Steve wrote:
| > | Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
| > | deist. You can't do it and you know it.
|
| > this madison (james?)
| >
| > James Madison, in an 1803 letter complaining about using public land
| > for churches, wrote "The purpose of separation of church and state is
| > to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked
| > the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." In 1774, he wrote
| > "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
| > every noble enterprise."
|
| I couldn't find in what you have said above where Madison declared he
| was a Deist. Please be more explicit.
that's not what i intended to show. you should see through the entire listed
quotes that i chose those that most directly made my ultimate
point...separation of church and state is a more important question than his
religious belief. moreover, it is not all that strange that many ideas
birthed by someone else are echoed in the voices of others. since we're on
topic with madison and not luther, that is the voice i showed. martin
luther's ideas were not relevatorily birthed having luther as their source
either. and, 'due to Caesar and what is due God' is not a madisonian idea
either nor is it luther's...but i sense you knew that already.
| What he does seem to say in the quote you are providing is exactly what
| Martin Luther said when he developed the "two-kingdoms" doctrine in the
| 16th century (viz., separation of church and state).
|
| Are you going to tell me that Martin Luther was also a deist and a
| hater of religion?
|
| Yes, indeed, Luther also hated "religious bondage" which "shackles the
| mind." That's no proof he was a deist.
|
| > or this madison?
| >
| > "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every
| > noble enterprise."
| > "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."
|
| Again, an echo of Martin Luther.
|
| Hey, maybe there is a reason why Madison sounded like he borrowed his
| thinking from Martin Luther.
|
| How about this:
|
| "the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction [church v.
| state], to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between
| what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge
| of both obligations."
|
| James Madison to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 23, 1821.
|
| > or this madison?
| >
| > "When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington,
Franklin,
| > Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
| > Unitarians or the Deists.
|
| Uh, that's not a quote from Madison. That's a quote from the Marxist
| historian Charles Beard.
no, that's a quote from the author of the source. that happens to be said
author but logically, whether he said it because he was a marxist or because
it was true has no bearing on its actual truth. historically, it seems to be
correct - marixism be damned.
| > officially he declared himself episcopalian.
|
| Thanks for the honesty. You have told the truth. Madison was also
| sympathetic to Presbyterianism insofar as he went to Seminary at
| Princeton in preparation for the ministry (source: Dr. James Smylie,
| "James Madison's Presbyterian Connection," PRESBYTERIAN HERITAGE,
| 7/2/2001)
no problem. i was never saying he was a deist.
| >..what is important to note here
| > is how fervent his belief in the seperation of church and state!
|
| Sure. Almost as fervent as the Baptist Roger Williams, eh? The point is
| that a fervent belief in separation of church and state says nothing
| about one being a deist.
you're right. next.
| > it was
| > quite evident through his own writings that he held religion with
passionate
| > distain.
|
| He held established religion with disdain. Personally, he was quite
| devoted to religion.
i've done my homework here. perhaps i should have qualified which kind of
religion i meant. however, to say he was devoted to religion without the
same qualification is quite similarly a mistake.
| As a matter of fact, one of the main reasons that Madison was such a
| strong proponent of separation of church and state, is that he said it
| nurtured a stronger religious devotion among the people and the
| ministers (SOURCE: Madison to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
|
| Writing to Edward Everett, Madison explained how separating church and
| state made the Episcopal church grow!:
|
| "Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law
| in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all
| other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much
| more of religion among us now than there ever was before the
| change; and particularly in the Sect [episcopalians] which enjoyed the
| legal patronage.
| This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the
| support of religion."
again, not his idea either. can you tell me whose paper provided that
religion can answer its own questions, giving birth to madison's support of
said seperation? bonus points in there. ;^)
| Now if Madison had passionate disdain for religion (as you claim), such
| as episcopalianism, he would not be championing a strategy that he
| believed would make it PROSPER!
|
| You really are a buffoon.
you really are defensive! perhaps that's why you missed my whole point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
02 Dec 2006 02:00:58 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
"cartman" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165083619.775761.300770@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
| Steve wrote:
| cartman wrote:
|
| > | Go ahead. Make my day. Show me where Madison declared that he was a
| > | deist. You can't do it and you know it.
|
| > this madison (james?)...
|
| I couldn't find in what you have said above where Madison declared he
| was a Deist. Please be more explicit.
that's not what i intended to show.
Well please read the logic of the thread above:
1. the challenge was made to show where Madison declared himself a
deist.
2. You tried to answer the challenge with a few quotes of Madison, none
of which showed he was a deist, and one from Beard that said Madison
was a deist.
If you weren't intending to answer the original question, you
accomplished your goal. If you were attempting to divert the thread,
throw in a red herring, or go off on a tangent, you succeeded quite
well.
you should see through the entire listed
quotes that i chose those that most directly made my ultimate
point...separation of church and state is a more important question than his
religious belief. moreover, it is not all that strange that many ideas
birthed by someone else are echoed in the voices of others. since we're on
topic with madison and not luther, that is the voice i showed.
The topic of this thread was whether Madison declared he was a deist.
That is the claim that Dracchus made, and allison indirectly supported.
I've still yet to see any evidence that it is true.
martin
luther's ideas were not relevatorily birthed having luther as their source
either. and, 'due to Caesar and what is due God' is not a madisonian idea
either nor is it luther's...but i sense you knew that already.
I introduced Martin Luther to show two things: 1) One can be a
proponent of separating the civil and ecclesiastical realms without
being a deist; and 2) Madison himself suggested that the "leader" of
separation of Church and State was Luther.
The fact that the "two kingdoms" doctrine, which separate church and
state, did not originate with Luther, but rather with Jesus, is
something that I am indeed quite aware of, but too many of the
historical buffoons who post here want to suggest that it was birthed
by Madison. Madison himself credited Luther with being the pioneer, but
both Madison and Luther claimed that the principle is implicit in the
New Testament.
| > "When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington,
Franklin,
| > Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
| > Unitarians or the Deists.
|
| Uh, that's not a quote from Madison. That's a quote from the Marxist
| historian Charles Beard.
no, that's a quote from the author of the source. that happens to be said
author but logically, whether he said it because he was a marxist or because
it was true has no bearing on its actual truth. historically, it seems to be
correct
There you go then: you are claiming that Beard was correct when he said
that Madison was a Deist/Unitarian.
If that is your point of view, then you need to cite some form of
primary source evidence to make your case. A citation to a secondary
source is not sufficient to a serious historian; if so, I can cite
dozens of *secondary* sources that claim that almost all of the
founders were Christians.
If you have no evidence, then your point is as historically valid as
the movie "National Treasure"
- marixism be damned.
Okay by me.
| > officially he declared himself episcopalian.
|
| Thanks for the honesty. You have told the truth. Madison was also
| sympathetic to Presbyterianism insofar as he went to Seminary at
| Princeton in preparation for the ministry (source: Dr. James Smylie,
| "James Madison's Presbyterian Connection," PRESBYTERIAN HERITAGE,
| 7/2/2001)
no problem. i was never saying he was a deist.
Wait a minute; above you said that Beard was correct in labeling
Madison a Deist or Unitarian. Are you suggesting Madison was a
Unitarian but not a Deist?
| >..what is important to note here
| > is how fervent his belief in the seperation of church and state!
|
| Sure. Almost as fervent as the Baptist Roger Williams, eh? The point is
| that a fervent belief in separation of church and state says nothing
| about one being a deist.
you're right. next.
Of course.
| "Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law
| in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all
| other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much
| more of religion among us now than there ever was before the
| change; and particularly in the Sect [episcopalians] which enjoyed the
| legal patronage.
| This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the
| support of religion."
again, not his idea either. can you tell me whose paper provided that
religion can answer its own questions, giving birth to madison's support of
said seperation? bonus points in there. ;^)
According to Madison, there were numerous sources that "birthed" the
idea of seperation [sic].
As already cited above, Madison said Luther led the way; the relevant
"paper" in that regard is Martin Luther, ON SECULAR AUTHORITY; online
at http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/secauth.html
Of course, when Madison credited Luther with leading the way, he also
cited a verse from the New Testament in support of seperation [sic].
More contemporaneous with Madison, however, were the following sources:
John Milton: Areopagitica
http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/areopagitica.html
John Locke: Letters on Toleration
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm
Isaac Backus (and his Baptist colleagues): An Appeal
http://classicliberal.tripod.com/misc/appeal.html
Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
http://www.historicaldocuments.com/VirginiaStatuteforReligiousFreedom.htm
Most likely, however, Madison's primary mentor, the Rev. Dr. John
Witherspoon, whose feet Madison sat at for several years, was the
principal influence over Madison's thinking in political matters:
(see James Smylie, "Madison and Witherspoon: Theological Roots of
American Political
Thought," The Princeton University Library Chronicle; Spring
1961:118-132).
| Now if Madison had passionate disdain for religion (as you claim), such
| as episcopalianism, he would not be championing a strategy that he
| believed would make it PROSPER!
|
| You really are a buffoon.
you really are defensive! perhaps that's why you missed my whole point.
You claimed that your point was to show that separation of church and
state was more important than whether Madison was a deist. That is a
tangent, a red herring. Whether I eat a meal today is also more
important to me than whether Madison was a deist. However, I hope that
you wont post a recipe or a restaurant location for me.
But in spite of the fact that you claimed Madison's deism is not
important, you went on to claim that Beard was correct in saying so.
Please support your claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics |
02 Dec 2006 03:14:40 PM |
|
|
<snip>
| I introduced Martin Luther to show two things: 1) One can be a
| proponent of separating the civil and ecclesiastical realms without
| being a deist; and 2) Madison himself suggested that the "leader" of
| separation of Church and State was Luther.
1) duh
2) to no great effect then. perhaps began a great thinking to that end but
others are far more qualified to be called 'leader' since they championed,
for differing reasons, with much greater results...madison being one of
them.
| The fact that the "two kingdoms" doctrine, which separate church and
| state, did not originate with Luther, but rather with Jesus, is
| something that I am indeed quite aware of, but too many of the
| historical buffoons who post here want to suggest that it was birthed
| by Madison. Madison himself credited Luther with being the pioneer, but
| both Madison and Luther claimed that the principle is implicit in the
| New Testament.
which is where i take exception. perhaps their consideration of the
scripture birthed a whole new meaning from it quite different than what
jesus intended. i interpret that passage in context as jesus performing
alexander's solution of the gordian knot.
| > | > "When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington,
| > Franklin,
| > | > Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the
| > | > Unitarians or the Deists.
| > |
| > | Uh, that's not a quote from Madison. That's a quote from the Marxist
| > | historian Charles Beard.
| >
| > no, that's a quote from the author of the source. that happens to be
said
| > author but logically, whether he said it because he was a marxist or
because
| > it was true has no bearing on its actual truth. historically, it seems
to be
| > correct
|
| There you go then: you are claiming that Beard was correct when he said
| that Madison was a Deist/Unitarian.
|
| If that is your point of view, then you need to cite some form of
| primary source evidence to make your case. A citation to a secondary
| source is not sufficient to a serious historian; if so, I can cite
| dozens of *secondary* sources that claim that almost all of the
| founders were Christians.
|
| If you have no evidence, then your point is as historically valid as
| the movie "National Treasure"
|
| > - marixism be damned.
|
| Okay by me.
|
| > | > officially he declared himself episcopalian.
| > |
| > | Thanks for the honesty. You have told the truth. Madison was also
| > | sympathetic to Presbyterianism insofar as he went to Seminary at
| > | Princeton in preparation for the ministry (source: Dr. James Smylie,
| > | "James Madison's Presbyterian Connection," PRESBYTERIAN HERITAGE,
| > | 7/2/2001)
| >
| > no problem. i was never saying he was a deist.
|
| Wait a minute; above you said that Beard was correct in labeling
| Madison a Deist or Unitarian. Are you suggesting Madison was a
| Unitarian but not a Deist?
if you read beard, he doesn't state they are unitarian nor deists. rather
that they seem highly deistic when they speak of god and his role in
government. i suppose you haven't read it since you are averse to anything
that smacks differently that red-white-and-blue.
| > | >..what is important to note here
| > | > is how fervent his belief in the seperation of church and state!
| > |
| > | Sure. Almost as fervent as the Baptist Roger Williams, eh? The point
is
| > | that a fervent belief in separation of church and state says nothing
| > | about one being a deist.
| >
| > you're right. next.
|
| Of course.
|
| > | "Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law
| > | in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all
| > | other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much
| > | more of religion among us now than there ever was before the
| > | change; and particularly in the Sect [episcopalians] which enjoyed the
| > | legal patronage.
| > | This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the
| > | support of religion."
| >
| > again, not his idea either. can you tell me whose paper provided that
| > religion can answer its own questions, giving birth to madison's support
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
