My purpose in posting his address was in relation to whether he tried to base his actions on his constitutional authority
What specific actions are you referring to, my friend? President Washington never claimed that the Constitution granted him authority to issue religious recommendations. Congress never claimed it had Constitutional authority to request the President to issue religious recommendations.
The House, according to the debates, did not rest upon the Constitution to justify its request for the President to issue a religious recommendation. The request was justified by "a number of precedents in Holy Writ" and "further precedents from the practice of the late Congress."
Originally posted by Francisco: Below is George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. The next time someone tells you that politicians shouldn't talk about religion, or the "Almighty God", just show them this
All it proves is that George Washington didn't understand the Constitution very well or that he did not acknowledge the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over the the things that belong to God and had no respect for the Separation of Church and State ordained by the Savior in Matthew 22:21.
When President James Madison's religious proclamations during the War of 1812 did nothing but "rekindle political hate", Congress realized that mixing relgion and government was a violation of divine law as well as the Constitution. After Madison's presidency, Congress refused to pass resolutions requesting executive religious recommendations and no President even came close to issuing one until Lincoln foolishly trespassed on the jurisdiction of God who responded by pouring out his wrath upon the nation.
I have to respectfully say that you're wrong, sir. The before and after of Matthew 22:21 shows that Jesus is talking about money, not a seperation. 1 Corinthians 15:28 states that "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under, Him, that God may be all in all." And Titus 2:10 states "Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things." Both of those verses, and many others, state that God should be "in all things" and "all in all." Why would God talk about the "Nation of Israel" if He didn't require the whole nation? And, remember, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. If it does, then most likely it's the reader, the interpretation of the scriptures or something else. Also, to eliminate God from just one thing, no matter the reason, would not be giving God dominion over ALL of one's life. It's just wrong..."No God, it said that you're not allowed in our (whatever)...so, I'm sorry. You'll just have to accept it." That's wrong...period. That's why our forefathers didn't implement "seperstion of church and state," a much too common misnomer, but eliminated that state from the choosing of a specific church or interfering with one...
The Constitution of the United States Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...(and so on)
I'm sorry, sir, but I believe that much more studying of the Bible and the country's history would benefit more people who believe in this misnomer. God is in charge of all...and that means ALL.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: travlrogue,
