quote:

Originally posted by FredFlash:

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
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.

If you fix the meaning of the Constitutin according to the offical actions, and non actions, of President Washington, we will have to be as strict as he was.

Washington only issued two religious proclamations in eight years. He never advocated posting the Ten Commandments anywhere. He never advocated enacting legislation to declare the people's trust in God on the nation's coins or to recommend a belief that we are "under God." Back in those days, most Americans believed a law that made God its object was treason against the Kingdom of Christ.

No one is gleaning their opinion on the notion of Separation of Church and State strictly from the statements of Washington (though many advocates of the theory will stop after selectively quoting Jefferson and Madison). Washington was the original subject of this post. I have formed my opinion based on the writings and actions of the people who were responsible for the Bill of Right's inception, resolution, and execution.

Enlighten me. What is significant about the two proclamations which you mentioned, as opposed to other acts of government officials? I submit to you, Washington's first Inaugural Address. The second paragraph is particularly notable. First, Washington makes his clear that his "first official act" is to recognize the Almighty, to Whom all gratitude and thanks is due, not only for being the Lord of the universe and King of nations, but for the unimaginable blessing which He had just given to the people of the United States. I believe my theory is justified that at least Washington supposed that the people of the United States would find his motives for a national day of Thanksgiving "obvious." I quote:

In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.

Perhaps Washington was naive? I have no time machine, but I’ve read some letters and quotes of commoners that sounded strikingly similar to the ideas expressed by the founding fathers. As to your claim that "back in those days, most Americans believed a law that made God its object was treason against the Kingdom of Christ," this is not the impression I get from my reading. You will recall that many of the original colonies were founded on very specific denominational creeds (hence, why Rhode Island was hailed as religiously tolerant). Washington was not advocating denominational creeds in his Thanksgiving proclamation, but appealing to a belief that all the vying denominations had in common: that God is the only reason this country came into existence (a point which he vividly illustrates in his Inaugural Address). Not only that, but should this new nation buck God, they would lose the freedom so miraculously acquired. Thus was the warning that Washington repeated in several presidential statements (to my knowledge). I am ignorant of much of the history surrounding the coinage and pledge amendments, but I believe that giving due recognition to God (in order to prevent such a tragedy) was one of the motivations behind those actions, a sort of Nineveh Repentance (indeed, Lincoln gave a similarly grave warning at the conclusion of the civil war that American's had better get on their knees and beg for forgiveness for the evil that they had wrought).

Paragraph III:

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Here, Washington does provide a constitutional basis for the appeals in this address, including a stern reminder that "the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." This is precisely what government leaders ought to do; make decisions based on their own convictions of what is best for the country. Teaching students that it is wrong to kill other students or to steal their lunch money or sass their teachers or sleep around is certainly to their benefit, whether or not such teachings are of Christian origin. For the Supreme Court to prohibit such actions is what disgruntled citizens have taken to calling "legislation from the bench." Sure, "Congress shall make no law...," but it didn't say anything about the Judicial Branch, now did it? That is because the courts did not acquire the power of judicial review until after the amendment was passed.

Sticking the 10 commandments on the wall should be no more a special case than a DARE poster, with that famous phrase: "This, is your BRAIN. This is your BRAIN on drugs." For a document, speech, action, or activity to be singled out because of its Christian nature appears to me a direct violation of the first amendment, because a law that restricts them is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

quote:

Originally posted by FredFlash:

quote:

No metaphor in American letters has had a more profound influence on law and policy than Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state.”

What profound influence are you referring to? What laws and what policies have been influenced?

My guess is he is referring to the numerous court cases that have used this notion as precedence for passing a particular restriction on religious exercise. Perhaps these don't come to mind as readily for everyone, but for many in the Christian community, the "no prayer in school" and other incidents are like a "remember the Alamo."

As to policies, many activities by students, such as an elementary school student selecting a bible story as their story to read in class, or a high schooler passing out evangelism tracts at his school locker, are suppressed by school officials, who tout "Separation of Church and State" dogma (for that is truly what it is for many, who know very little of the matter: 'everyone says so'). What is humerous about the latter story, the one about the kid passing out tracts, is that when the school officials came to tell him to stop, he reached into his locker and pulled out a copy of his state's constitution, which said something to the effect that "religion and morality shall always be taught in the schools of this state." You'll find that a number of state constitutions have similar statements. This was news to his school officials. I believe they let him alone after that incident.

quote:

No one is gleaning their opinion on the notion of Separation of Church and State strictly from the statements of Washington (though many advocates of the theory will stop after selectively quoting Jefferson and Madison). Washington was the original subject of this post. I have formed my opinion based on the writings and actions of the people who were responsible for the Bill of Right's inception, resolution, and execution.

What exactly in your opinion was the notion of Separation of Church and State held by the men who drafted and adopted the U. S. Constituton? If possible, please use their own words. Please use only the words of those who actually participated directly in writing it or adopting it. Please cite only those who signed it or voted in favor of its adoption.

quote:

Originally posted by FredFlash:

quote:

Today, this figure of speech is accepted by many Americans as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church–state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life.

Who are these strict separationists you claim hold that religous influence are to to be systematically and coercively stripped from public life? According to google, you are are the only one who has ever used the phrase "systematically and coercively stripped from public life."

FredFlash, you make me laugh. Thank you!
Only a guess, but perhaps it is a paraphrase for a plethora of actions which are well documented?