| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 May 2007 06:21:59 AM |
| Object: |
Sep C&S History Lessons #11 (God in the Constitution) |
Sep C&S History Lessons #11 (God in the Constitution)
Message #9360 of 9360
JANUARY 1890
"God in the
Constitution" originally appeared in The Arena (Boston) in January
1890. Our text is reprintedfrom the New Dresden Edition of The Works
of Ingersoll (New York City: The Ingersoll Publishers Inc., 1900).
GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION
by Robert G. Ingersoll
"All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed."
In this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the
people themselves; that they are the only rightful source of
authority. For many centuries before the formation of our Government,
before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people
had but little voice in the affairs of nations. The source of
authority was not in this world; kings were not crowned by their
subjects, and the sceptre was not held by the consent of the governed.
The king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that reason was
not accountable to the people for the exercise of his power. He
commanded, and the people obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his
partner, the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of earth
was patterned after the kingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in
heaven, whose will was law, and the king was a supreme autocrat on
earth whose will was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings to do
his will, and the king on earth had certain favorites and officers to
do his. These officers were accountable to him, and he was responsible
to God.
The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine
plan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and
promises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten
the common people; no one thought of educating a peasant -- of
developing the mind of a laborer. The people were created to support
thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey -- to work and
want. They were to be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance
and rags, and their children must expect no more. In the presence of
the king they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they
groveled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided his earnings with
the state, because he imagined it protected his body; he divided his
crust with the church, believing that it protected his soul. He was
the prey of Throne and Altar -- one deformed his body, the other his
mind -- and these two vultures fed upon his toil. He was taught by the
king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest to despise
the believers in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all
people except his own. He had no sympathy with the peasants of other
lands, enslaved and plundered like himself. He was kept in ignorance,
because education is the enemy of superstition, and because education
is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.
The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true
of every land -- the boundaries of countries are not the limitations
of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those
who speak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and
those who suffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world,
and extends the hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow
before a provincial and patriotic god -- one who protects his tribe or
nation, and abhors the rest of mankind.
Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted that it
was the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone had the true
religion -- that the gods of other nations were false and
fraudulent, and that other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd.
In this way the seeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have
been kindled the flames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of
a different complexion, with those who knelt at other altars and
expressed their thoughts in other words -- and even a difference in
garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity
was the food of prejudice and the excuse for hatred.
The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People
became somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices
were quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat
acquainted with kings -- peasants had the pleasure of gazing at
princes, and it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly
in rags and names.
In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They
declared that "all governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then
political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure
blasphemy -- a renunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration
of the independence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and
priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves.
Politically it tore down every altar and denied the authority of every
"sacred book," and appealed from the Providence of God to the
Providence of Man. Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a
Constitution for the great Republic.
What was the office or purpose of that Constitution? Admitting that
all power came from the people, it was necessary, first, that certain
means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the
people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate certain
departments that should exercise certain powers of the Government.
There must be the legislative, the judicial and the executive
departments. Those who make laws should not execute them. Those who
execute laws should not have the power of absolutely determining their
meaning or their constitutionality. For these reasons, among others, a
Constitution was adopted.
This Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked
out the limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of
passion, men shall not go beyond the point designated in the calm
moment of reason. When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject
to reason, it is well he should define the limits of power, so that
the waves driven by the storm of passion shall not overbear the shore.
A constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the
chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves.
It defines the limit of power and the limit of obedience. It follows,
then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot be enforced
by the power of the state -- that is, by the army and navy. Behind
every provision of the Constitution should stand the force of the
nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.
Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the
existence and supremacy of God -- what becomes of the supremacy of the
people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does
not enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.
Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God?
Can the offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his
lips be closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the
inauguration of religious persecution?
And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution,
the question naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor.
Shall we select the God of the Catholics -- he who has established an
infallible church presided over by an infallible pope, and who is
delighted with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in
exceedingly common Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the
Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize
necessity and responsibility, and who in some way justifies himself
for damning most of his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan,
the enemy of joy -- of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the
universe, and small enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on
whether the body it inhabited was immersed or sprinkled? What God is
it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the God of the Old
Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy?
If slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right
then, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who issued a
commandment against all art -- who was the enemy of investigation and
of free speech? Is it the God who commanded the husband to stone his
wife to death because she differed with him on the subject of
religion? Are we to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and
punish hundreds of offences with death? What court, what tribunal of
last resort, is to define this God, and who is to make known his will?
In his presence, laws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions
of courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known the will of
this supreme God? Will there be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?
Of course all persons elected to office will either swear or affirm to
support the Constitution. Men who do not believe in this God, cannot
so swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of
trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not interfere with the
oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only
exclude honest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent people know
that no one knows whether there is a God or not. The existence of such
a Being is merely a matter of opinion.
Men who believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die for the
honor of their country, will be excluded from taking any part in the
administration of its affairs. Such a provision would place the
country under the feet of priests. To recognize a Deity in the organic
law of our country would be the destruction of religious liberty. The
God in the Constitution would have to be protected. There would be
laws against blasphemy, laws against the publication of honest
thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers in the mails in which
this constitutional God should be attacked. Our land would be filled
with theological spies, with religious eavesdroppers, and all the
snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in this sunshine of
religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.
It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and rightful
Governor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If this
God is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to
acknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not add to his power.
If he governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of
men.
Having this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized
in the Constitution of the United States? If he had the supreme
authority and neglected to put himself in the Constitution, is not
this, at least, prima facie evidence that he did not desire to be
there? For one, I am not in favor of the God who has "ordained the
powers that be." What have we to say of Russia -- of Siberia? What can
we say of the persecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and nobles
who live on the stolen labor of others? What of the priest and
cardinal and pope who wrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single
coin thrice earned? Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a
constitutional amendment? The Confederate States acknowledged God in
their constitution, and yet they were overwhelmed by a people in whose
organic law no reference to God is made. All the kings of the earth
acknowledge the existence of God, and God is their ally; and this
belief in God is used as a means to enslave and rob, to govern and
degrade the people whom they call their subjects.
The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power
from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing
whatever to do -- and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the
fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should
be abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths -- no man
should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any
appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go
in partnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead
of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely
should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents
should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon
the people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is
outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States to justify this religious
impertinence.
For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a
religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our
money: "In God We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and navy,
and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this
is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration
of Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United
States. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves
without the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the
position that the people are the real and only rightful source of
authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine
what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally
expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national
superstition -- no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings --
and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.
The government of God has been tried. It was tried in Palestine
several thousand years ago, and the God of the Jews was a monster of
cruelty and ignorance, and the people governed by this God lost their
nationality. Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God was the
Governor -- the pope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and
cardinal was armed with credentials from the Most High -- and the
result was that the noblest and best were in prisons, the greatest and
grandest perished at the stake. The result was that vices were crowned
with honor, and virtues whipped naked through the streets. The result
was that hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while honesty
languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition.
The government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his
representative; and under this government of God the flames climbed
around the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he
dared to express an honest thought. This government of God was tried
in Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown, that bore,
through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and assassination.
This government of God was established in New England, and the result
was that Quakers were hanged or burned -- the laws of Moses re-enacted
and the "witch was not suffered to live."
The result was that investigation was a crime, and the expression of
an honest thought a capital offence. This government of God was
established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled, the Moors were
driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing left but the
ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this monster. This government of
God was tried in the United States when slavery was regarded as a
divine institution, when men and women were regarded as criminals
because they sought for liberty by flight, and when others were
regarded as criminals because they gave them food and shelter. The
pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes,
and the mouths of slave-traders were filled with passages of
Scripture, defending and upholding the traffic in human flesh.
We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. Every
effort to really better the condition of mankind has been opposed by
the worshipers of some God. The church in all ages and among all
peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere
and at all times, it has opposed the liberty of thought and
expression. It has been the sworn enemy of investigation and of
intellectual development. It has denied the existence of facts, the
tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has always been
carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy. It has erected the gallows
for Genius. It has built the dungeon for Thinkers. And to-day the
orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever was to the mental
freedom of the human race. Of course, there is a distinction made
between churches and individual members. There have been millions of
Christians who have been believers in liberty and in the freedom of
expression -- millions who have fought for the rights of man -- but
churches as organizations, have been on the other side. It is true
that churches have fought churches -- that Protestants battled with
the Catholics for what they were pleased to call the freedom of
conscience; and it is also true that the moment these Protestants
obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of conscience to
others.
Let me show you the difference between the theological and the secular
spirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the noblest of the
human race, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the Catholic Church
-- that is to say, by the "Triumphant Beast." This man had committed
certain crimes --he had publicly stated that there were other worlds
than this -- other constellations than ours. He had ventured the
supposition that other planets might be peopled. More than this, and
worse than this, he had asserted the heliocentric theory -- that the
earth made its annual journey about the sun. He had also given it as
his opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was found
unworthy to live, and about his body were piled the fagots of the
Catholic Church. This man, this genius, this pioneer of the science of
the nineteenth century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The
Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They take into
consideration the ignorance and brutality of the times. They remember
that the world was governed by a God who was then the source of all
authority. This is the charity of Infidelity, -- of philosophy. But
the church of to-day is so heartless, is still so cold and cruel, that
it can find no excuse for the murdered.
This is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy - - between God
and man.
If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There is no
room for both. If the people of the great Republic become
superstitious enough and ignorant enough to put God in the
Constitution of the United States, the experiment of self-government
will have failed, and the great and splendid declaration that "all
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed"
will have been denied, and in its place will be found this: All power
comes from God; priests are his agents, the people are their slaves.
Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left
entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its
accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, government
has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon force, and
force should never interfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws
should define the rights of men and their duties toward each other,
and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this world.
A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel -- a nation is incapable
of having opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is Christian, will
all the citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will they all be damned?
Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens composing a
nation may believe or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what
they please. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying,
"it has no soul." There can be no such thing as a Christian
corporation. Several Christians may form a corporation, but it can
hardly be said that the corporation thus formed was included in the
atonement. For instance: Seven Christians form a corporation -- that
is to say, there are seven natural persons and one artificial -- can
it be said that there are eight souls to be saved?
No human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or experience
enough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into this darkness
Science has not yet carried its torch. No human being has gone beyond
the horizon of the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural,
one man knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as another.
Upon this question, chimpanzees and cardinals, apes and popes, are
upon exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only by the most
powerful microscope, is as familiar with this subject, as the greatest
genius that has been produced by the human race. Governments and laws
are for the preservation of rights and the regulation of conduct. One
man should not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another. In
the metaphysical world there should be no interference whatever. The
same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot regulate what is or is
not music, what is or what is not beautiful -- and constitutions
cannot definitely settle and determine the perfection of statues, the
value of paintings, or the glory and subtlety of thought. In spite of
laws and constitutions the brain will think. In every direction
consistent with the well-being and peace of society, there should be
freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the theology of another;
neither should a minority, however small, be forced to acquiesce in
the opinions of a majority, however large.
If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need
not waste our energies in his defence. It is enough for us to give to
every other human being the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may
or may not be a Supreme Ruler of the universe -- but we are certain
that man exists, and we believe that freedom is the condition of
progress; that it is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and
that without it man will go back to the den of savagery, and will
become the fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts.
We have tried the government of priests, and we know that such
governments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all
the instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to
have God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read
the history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of
millions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate
the wrath, or win the approbation of this God.
There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This
follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that "governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The priest
was no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the
principle on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the
authority of the people, but of some "Power from on High," and to
recognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The
founders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests,
and said to them: "You may turn your attention to the other world --
we will attend to the affairs of this." Equal liberty was given to
all. But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this -- he wishes
to destroy the liberty of the people -- he wishes a recognition of his
God as the source of authority, to the end that the church may become
the supreme power. But the sun will not be turned backward. The people
of the United States are intelligent. They no longer believe
implicitly in supernatural religion. They are losing confidence in the
miracles and marvels of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free
school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They are believers in
education, in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion that
the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place with the
necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of
the black art.
We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When
the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels
for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the
children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were
clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The
day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the
necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of
the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the
theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of
mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day
-- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an
inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years
ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not
drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in
cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with
holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer,
nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are
the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and
experience - - and for them all, man is indebted to man.
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist
that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the
people, and for the people."
Text prepared and distributed by American Atheist Online Services, P O
Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195. Voice: (512) 458-1244. BBS: (512)
302-0223.
This text may be freely downloaded, reprinted, and/other otherwise
redistributed, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to
American Atheist Online Services.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/god_in_constitution.\html
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History Lessons #11 (God in the Constitution) |
06 May 2007 08:51:22 AM |
|
|
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist
that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the
people, and for the people."
"as was said three thousand years ago, so it must still be said 'the
judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - President
Lincoln in his second inaugural address.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
after God.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History Lessons #11 (God in the Constitution) |
08 May 2007 04:50:56 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|> Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist
:|> that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the
:|> people, and for the people."
:|
:|"as was said three thousand years ago, so it must still be said 'the
:|judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - President
:|Lincoln in his second inaugural address.
:|
:|***************************************************************
:|You are invited to check out the following:
:|
:|Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
:|one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
:|after God.
:|
:|Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
:|
:|Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
:|eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
:|
:|****************************************************************
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
:|
The above is from the same guy who brought you this
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On May 4, 5:31 am, wrote:
:|> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >:|On May 1, 7:13 am, wrote:
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a corpo
:|> >:|> Message #9272 of 9293
:|> >:|> 1888
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Bancroft on the Constitution
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality
:|> >:|> and individuality. It knows nothing of differences by descent, or
:|> >:|> opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political
:|> >:|> power of property. It leaves the individual alongside of the
:|> >:|> individual. No nationality of character could take form, except on the
:|> >:|> principle of individuality, so that the mind might be free, and every
:|> >:|> faculty have the unlimited opportunity for its development and culture
:|> >:|> . . . .
:|> >:|> "The rule of individuality was extended as never before . . . .
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a
:|> >:|> corporation. In the earliest states known to history, government and
:|> >:|> religion were one and indivisible. Each state had its special deity,
:|> >:|> and of these protectors one after another might be overthrown in
:|> >:|> battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian War grew out of a
:|> >:|> strife about an oracle. Rome, as it adopted into citizenship those
:|> >:|> whom it vanquished, sometimes introduced, and with good logic for that
:|> >:|> day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating liberty
:|> >:|> of religion for the conscience of the individual till a voice in
:|> >:|> Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity by
:|> >:|> establishing for all mankind a pure, spiritual, and universal
:|> >:|> religion, enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's.
:|> >:|> The rule was upheld during the infancy of this gospel for all men. No
:|> >:|> sooner was the religion of freedom adopted by the chief of the Roman
:|> >:|> Empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality and
:|> >:|> enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy state; and so it
:|> >:|> continued till the new nation-the least defiled with the barren
:|> >:|> scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most sincere believer in
:|> >:|> Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the
:|> >:|> Reformation in its purest form-when it came to establish a government
:|> >:|> for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be
:|> >:|> regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a
:|> >:|> state.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in
:|> >:|> religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of
:|> >:|> accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely
:|> >:|> ordained in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the
:|> >:|> temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the
:|> >:|> people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the
:|> >:|> power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the
:|> >:|> sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the
:|> >:|> infinite spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity
:|> >:|> and power. "
:|> >:|> (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Bancroft, George, "History of the United
:|> >:|> States" (1888), Vol. VI, pp. 443, 444. American State Papers on
:|> >:|> Freedom in Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The
:|> >:|> Religious Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and
:|> >:|> Herald. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
:|> >:|> Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on
:|> >:|> Sunday Legislation. pp 140-141)
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation (1779):
:|> >:|"...too few have been sufficiently awakened to a sense of their guilt,
:|> >:|or warmed our Bosoms with gratitude, or taught to amend their lives
:|> >:|and turn from their sins, that so He might turn from His wrath."
:|>
:|> Duh.
:|>
:|> When was the Constitution framed?
:|> When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
:|> When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
:|> actually begin operation?
:|>
:|> Your example above is irrelevant since the answers to the above questions are
:|> all AFTER 1779.
:|>
:|> Better luck next time
:|>
:|
:|DUH! Your post was about the Constitution, and this is from the
:|Constitutional Convention. Pay attention next time.
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
More accurately
Christian Idiot and internet troll
Duh and double DUH
Had you bothered to have answered the questions I posed to you above, even
if only silently in your own mind, you would have realized your mistake
and not provided further evidence that you are an idiot who doesn't know
what you are talking about.
Answers to the questions
Q. When was the Constitution framed?
A. 1787
Q. When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
A. In the period of late 1787 - 1788
Q. When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
actually begin operation?
A. March 1789
Dude anythign that happned in 1779 is totally irrelevant and was not in any
way shape or form part of the Constitutional Convention which took place
thought the summer of 1787
A mind is a powereful thing to waste.
My condescendence on your wasted mind
(grin)
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
****************************************************************
:|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
