quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
From your posts, FredFlash, I believe you would enjoy a read through Original Intent by David Barton.

I have read enough of David Barton to know that he is generally full of crap! I learned about the history of separation of church and state by examining his claims and evidence and finding that he is very dishonest.

Pick out one of his claims, examine carefully the evidence he offers to support it, post the claim here with your evaluation of his evidence and we can discuss it.

quote:

George Washington, in addition to being the first president, was also the Commander in Chief of the continental army, as well as president of the Constitutional Convention, the result of which was the piece of paper to which several amendments were made to ensure its ratification.

The Constitution was adopted just as the Philadelphia Convention had proposed it. Eight of the eleven states that ratified it by 1789 recommended no amendments whatsoever. Five of the eleven state made recommendations for additional safeguards for the rights of conscience but their ratification was in no way contingent upon the adoption of the proposed amendments.

quote:

It's only a hunch, but I highly doubt that Washington could be in any way ignorant of the ideas being debated when the first amendment was written, seeing as he had to sit and listen to every single argument brought before the convention (no days off when you're presiding over the assembly).

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 did not frame the First Amendment. The First U. S. Congress framed it 1789.

quote:

His own actions during the war certainly demonstrate his devotion to his Creator.

If George Washington had been devoted to his Creator, and if his Creator was the God whose son is Jesus Christ, he would have known that he had no authority over the Kingdom of Christ and thrown Roger Sherman and the other Satan worshippers out of his office when they requested him to issue a religious recommendation to the American people dispite the Savior's admonition in Matthew 22:21 not to render to Caesar what belongs to God.

To clarify, my "obvious" comment referred to the people who lived in the 1700's. I shall have to examine your claim that "All of President Washington's non-religious proclamations contain statements...regarding its source(s) of authority" as I get the opportunity. Regardless, that point seems a bit of a Red Herring, because if Washington purposely abstained from establishing constitutional authority for his Thanksgiving proclamation, he must have had some reason other than ignorance, which was your original claim. Either he is malicious, trampling constitutional authority, or he sees no practical benefit in justifying his religious proclamations according to their constitutional authority. After all, which is more awe inspiring: that God graciously established this nation against innumerable odds, or that the constitution grants us authority to hold national days of thanksgiving, so by golly we're gonna do it! I know Washington was a bit stuffy at times, but he wasn't that unromantic.

Thanks for correcting my facts on the constitutional convention, FredFlash. I had forgotten about the interim period between the constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, I still don't see how Washington could be ignorant of the ideas behind the Bill of Rights, especially as his role of US president required him to send the final copy out to the states for ratification.

I do not have a copy of Original Intent (I left it at school), but I don't very much like the nature of your challenge, namely, because many of the points Barton makes are plainly evident from the source material he prints. One is the religious nature of the majority of the founding fathers, who were by today's standards, quite frankly, proverbial 'Jesus Freaks.' He lists not only quotes, but actions taken by these men. Whatever possibility quotation leaves for manipulating context, plain statements like "so and so founded this bible society" are free from this danger. One of his claims that are more relevant to this discussion is that the people who were instrumental in the formation of the Bill of Rights, and who are often quoted today as having supported separation of Church and State, showed no such principle in their own political actions. For example, why would Jefferson allocate federal funding to send Christian missionaries to the "Indians" (Native Americans) during his presidency if he believed that to be the role of independent religious societies?

Now as for the theological dimension of your argument, I think you will have to elaborate on your interpretation of Mathew's gospel if we are to have any intelligent debate (since you keep emphasizing that point). I haven't yet heard a sermon that explained Jesus' teaching to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" as the divine origin of separation of Church and State doctrine. Do you think it means that God has relegated ownership of a certain portion of the earth to the governing bodies? It was David's understanding that "the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it" (Ps 24:1 NAS). Humanity, both mighty and meek, are merely stewards of everything under our control. Nebuchadnezzar learned this lesson the hard way.

I also wonder, how are we to obey the two greatest commandments, to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (by Mark's reckoning) and to love our neighbor as ourselves, which includes acting as if we do, if we are supposed to put our Christianity on a shelf when we show up for work at a federally funded institution? Jesus didn't teach his disciples to be Sunday Christians.

Finally, if the verse in question was instructing governing officials, why was it directed to commoners, that is, those who pay taxes?