It is usually legal “conservatives” who claim that appealscourts often “make” law, not interpret it.Well, two of the three judges on the panel of the EleventhCircuit seem to have wildlymisinterpreted the key basis for the only Supreme Court decision which did uphold onespecific kind of “legislative prayer” and created a new standard out of whole cloth.
The heart of the Marsh v. Chambers decision is thatlegislative prayer is permissible only if it is legally non-sectarian (I forone do not believe there is such a thing as a ‘non-sectarian” prayer as atheological matter.You have to bepraying to somebody.)For legalpurposes, though, the prayer must not use language or symbols specific to onefaith.The Supreme Court emphasized thatwith the Nebraskachaplain “there was no indication that the prayer opportunity has beenexploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faithor belief.”It specifically noted, toreemphasize that point that “the particular chaplain had removed all referencesto Christ.”
Judge William H. Pryor (and you, Jay) seems to think thatnon-sectarianism has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s view.One prayer at issue in this case invoked the”God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mohammed”, but Judge Pryor seems to think a courtcould not possibly determine if that was “sectarian”.If the prayer were to “the Lord Satan” or to”Odin, father of Thor”, would he have said the same thing?I don’t think so.It stretches credulity to believe Judge Pryorcan’t tell a sectarian prayer when he hears one.
Until this Eleventh Circuit decision, four other federalappellate courts had hewed to the simple principle in Marsh.Invocation of a specific deity or particular theological undergirding is notconstitutionally permissible.Now, thereis a “split” (although not exactly an even one) which might make this case acandidate for high court action if the plaintiffs choose to appeal. My view, though, is that the current Supreme Court would likely pass on this issue even if given such an opportunity.
You and the Eleventh Circuit also raise the old issue of howthe Continental Congress had prayer.TheContinental Congress of course predates the writing of or ratification of theBill of Rights.You also invoke JusticeWilliam O. Douglas’ dicta that “we are a religious people whose institutionspresuppose a Supreme Being”.Douglas of course, was not, of course, the kind of justiceyou’d want on the Supreme Court in the McCain Era (in the event that comes topass on Tuesday.)He was a strictseparationist and, if you recall, even thought that trees had “standing” tosue.
More to Come Barry,
It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space. I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.
My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n
Thanks for the Memories Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging
President Obama: Does He Get It? Barry,
I would not use that label to identify the President. I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.
Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside
President Obama is the "Angel of Death"? Give me a break! Jay, I think you would agree with me that businesses have the right to hire and fire as they see fit. Fox News, per usual, has manufactured a controversy here, and that's all there is to it. But since you mentioned you believe Juan Williams' had the "right to express a thought," I'd like to at least
Juan Williams' Firing: Political Correctness Over the Top Barry, it's the ultimate in political correctness. Losing your job for being honest - for expressing a feeling - a thought. The problem is that in the case of former NPR journalist Juan Williams, an honest thought - expressing a feeling - about Muslims and 9-11 - cost him his job.
I agree that the idea of “non-sectarian prayer” is theologically untenable. But to me, an atheist, all public prayer is offensive and a violation of my rights not to have religion inflicted on me. The same holds for a “moment of silence.”
It is not the god in the prayer that makes it offensive; rather, it is the act of forcing another to endure a public ritual, whether prayer, moment of silence, wedding, funeral, Christmas, Easter, or even Halloween, against his will.
I’m not any fan of prayers of any kind before legislative bodies. My point in the post was just to concede that for the moment, we lost that battle and should now try to be “legally” correct even if “theologically” wrong. I always advise legislators to skip invocations of any kind–in a country with 2000 religions and 15-20 million freethinkers and atheists it is the best thing to do.
I still don’t understand why you are dancing around the real issue: public displays of piety are neither constitutional nor biblical. Simply introducing a minister is an endorsement of his religion. His mere presence there is “respecting an establishment of religion”. That belongs in church, not in a legislative or judicial setting…
Refer to the blog that Jay wrote entitled, “Appeals Court OKs Legislative Prayer.” It deals with a case in Cobb County, Georgia. If prayer in that assembly had been a tradition for well over 200 years, how does it infringe on the wall of separation if the founding fathers approved of it? If it has been going on that long, one can only assume that, apparently, the founding fathers didn’t have a problem with it. Just curious to everybody’s opinion.
Jeff,
The founding fathers didn’t have a problem with slavery or the fact that women had no say in the government. Therefore it doesn’t matter if the founders approved of a prayer being said publicly. We the people DO NOT approve of it NOW and that is ALL that matters.
Boris,
I’ve not seen any statistics that qualify you to say, “we the people”. It is interesting that in certain comments, you use quotes that show that supposedly the founding fathers did not want any religion in government…but when, something shows that they weren’t as anti-religious as you claim, you resort to the “we the people are this way now” rhetoric.
Show me some unbiased statistics that shows that the majority of people support your position and we’ll discuss it further. Until then, “we the people” doesn’t hold water.
In Dec., 2005 (which I know is kind of old, but not really) a random telephone poll performed by Fox News showed that 81% of Americans disagreed that all religion should be excluded from public life.
83% of Americans believed that nativity scenes should be allowed on public property.
93% believed that “in God we trust” should remain on our currency.
76% believed that the 10 Commandments should be allowed to be displayed on government property.
77% of people thought that the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life.
82% favored allowing public schools to have a prayer during graduation ceremonies.
So, apparently your “we the people” is really not the majority. And “we the people” is not as anti-religious as you claim.
I agree with you, Jeff. (good percentages) I do not know what is wrong with having prayer or a preacher start out a session with a prayer. As long as if you do not want to participate, you do not have to. Even more, we are a country based on moral values. We even have references to God all over: In our court rooms, on our money, the Presidents usually end addresses with “…God bless…” Even on 9/11, members of congress were on the steps, singing God bless America! It is amazing that the only time we get to know God is in time of trouble. So, why not allow prayer before sessions.
The constitution, in addition to “We the people…” also has: “…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,…” Where do we consider the term “blessings” comes from? Who does the blessing? I believe it is a reference to a Supreme Being (God), where the architects of the constitution realized that there is a higher authority.
Amen Jeff. I hate to pick on specific persons(not really), but the difficulty as I see it, with the assertions of the Reverend and Boris that that since everybody can’t agree on a particular position that no one should be able to enjoy or excercise a particular thing,or right if you will. for example prayer in a public place, or a nativity scene on a court house lawn.
I’m with you, if prayer in school, or posting the ten commandments somehow violates our “separation of church-and-state vignette”, wouldn’t someone 250 years ago spoke up right away. Are we so proud and narcissistic that we can claim to better know the minds of great men like Adams,Jeffeson,Franklin and on and on………
In fact our legislators continuously add to and enforce new restrictions on our behaviors almost everyday. From motorcycle helmet laws to seat belt laws. How is it a woman can check into a planned parent hood and call it a medical procedure to remove an unwanted baby from her womb, and I get a ticket for choosing not to wear my seatbelt? Which decision has a bigger impact on humanity? After all it’s my body right? But I digress.
We the people don’t agree on a lot of things as a body. We can’t agree as to whether or not or even when an unborn fetus should be conferred human rights and protections, and yet our founders did confer these rights on our posterity. (In case you are wondering; posterity refers to our unborn generations) That means your children, and their children and so on. If we allow 3000 a day to be terminated one thing is for sure; there will be one group of people who’ll never get to choose anything!
The fact is we have already decided the life issue in the courts.
Everytime we sentence a mother to jail for harming her unborn baby with drugs or alcohol, or when a woman and her unborn are murdered and the perpetrator is charged with a double homicide we answer the question. Have we forgotten the Scott Peterson case?
Democrats love to cling to this issue and defy all attempts to limit abortions for any reason for reasons of protecting the life of the mother. I am interested in how many womens lifes were saved by delivering all but the head of the baby, sticking a sharp object into the base of the childs skull and sucking out the brains and then pulling out the dead child?
When are we (meaning conservative christians) going to put this arguement together and have this debat.
Sorry to go so long. I don’t see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and be pro abortion. I can just picture the scene on judgement day.
Dear heavenly father, I did my best to uphold a womans right to kill her unborn child, to support same sex marriage, and to live a green life.
Jeff,
You said: I’ve not seen any statistics that qualify you to say, “we the people”. It is interesting that in certain comments, you use quotes that show that supposedly the founding fathers did not want any religion in government…but when, something shows that they weren’t as anti-religious as you claim, you resort to the “we the people are this way now” rhetoric.
Boris says: I don’t have to resort to anything but the truth and our founder’s own words. I have never seen anything that could show our founders wanted religion in our government or that could possibly support any of your revisionist claims. It’s amazing how you can look right at our founder’s own words and act they were never said. “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson. “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin.
You said: Show me some unbiased statistics that shows that the majority of people support your position and we’ll discuss it further. Until then, “we the people” doesn’t hold water.
Boris says: We have laws that ban prayer in public places like schools so how did they get in and stay in place if the majority doesn’t want them there? Because we the people want them there.
You said: In Dec., 2005 (which I know is kind of old, but not really) a random telephone poll performed by Fox News showed that 81% of Americans disagreed that all religion should be excluded from public life.
Boris says: Oh yeah, an unbiased poll from the right wing Christian fanatic wackos running Fox News. We all believe that it’s fair and balanced. If Fox News was really fair and balanced would they have to keep telling us they were? If Christianity really were true, would Christians have to keep claiming to have the truth? Truth doesn’t demand belief. Your religion does. Case closed.
You said: So, apparently your “we the people” is really not the majority. And “we the people” is not as anti-religious as you claim.
Boris says: Then why are you fundamentalists complaining and trying to get so many laws overturned? Apparently your arguments are as empty as the ones used to support your religious superstitions.
Boris,
As for the fox poll, if it was a polling of Christians, then it would be biased. However, it was a random poll over the phone. Yep, random. So, the results were accurate, whether you like it or not.
Jeff,
Sure. If you fundamentalists were in the majority as you claim then our laws would reflect that. But they don’t do they? How do you explain THAT?
Well, here’s my opinion, which is what it is…an opinion. First off, I didn’t say that fundamentalists were the majority in the country…I know better than that. The poll simply showed that the American people were not as anti-religious as some claim…..But back to the subject. I believe people in this country are forced to make a choice between their wallets and their morals. There aren’t many conservative democrats that run for office. For example, Obama may have a better economic plan, but then is liberal concerning religion in government. I don’t believe it is right, but many are blinded by their pocketbook and forget about morals at voting time…That’s just my opinion.
Jeff,
Our Constitution specifically denies religion in government. People who want to create a Christian theocracy like Hitler’s Germany are very dangerous and anti-American. You people try to force your religion on the rest of us by forcing it into our government and even our public schools with your pseudo-scientific hoaxes like Intelligent Design. Then you wonder why there are people like me helping to stamp out your false anti-science and anti-human religion. Your own words prove why Christianity must be completely eliminated through education. If people only study the history of Christian atrocities and its 2000 year long war on science and scientists, not to mention freedom, they would realize just how false Christianity really is. Christianity must not survive another century if we are to survive as a race.
Boris,
I’m not gonna argue with you. I’m sorry you feel such about Christianity. But the fact is that no matter what you try to do, Christianity will remain around forever. Hmm…anti-American….let’s see….”Then you wonder why there are people like me helping to stamp out your false anti-science and anti-human religion. Your own words prove why Christianity must be completely eliminated through education. If people only study the history of Christian atrocities and its 2000 year long war on science and scientists, not to mention freedom, they would realize just how false Christianity really is. Christianity must not survive another century if we are to survive as a race.” And you call me anti-American?!!
The constitution prevents government in religion, not religion in government, as evidenced by the over 200 year old tradition of governmental prayer in Georgia, among other things….If you really believe that Christianity is Hitler’s Germany, then you don’t have a clue as to what Christianity is. By the way, we will never force people to convert, as Hitler did. Joshua 24:15,”CHOOSE
For Boris, a quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.”
- Speech to the Constitutional Convention (1787-06-28)
As for your Jefferson quote, it is listed on the Spurious Quotes page for the Jefferson Library (http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html)
Better quotes by him are:
“I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests.” –Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816.
“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.
I enjoy that second one. The establishment of a religion was not part of the Constitution but was left to the State. However it appears that even that right is being abolished.
You may want to research your sources for quotations before treating them as gospel. Thank you.
I agree with you, Jeff, and good post toddes.
Should a judge rule against religion? Is not that infringing on religious rights? It seems that they are legislating from the bench. Some call that ‘judicial tyranny’.
In the constitution, the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It should be noted, as far as I know, that without exception, the Framers were Christian or believed in God (Deism). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. The Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.
I also found that Franklin Requested Prayers in the Constitutional Convention.
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day’s session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth–that God governs in the Affairs of Men.” “I also believe,” Franklin continued, that “without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.” Franklin’s motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.
Our founding fathers had Christian values and recognized a supreme being (God) and that we need his aid. Franklin’s reference to Babel, I believe, is to remind them that we need to build a nation based on Godly values and never think we are our own god.
So, I believe, it is appropriate that all sessions and meetings have the right to have prayer, and no judge has the authority to take that away.
Even when the President is sworn in, they end with: “…so help me God.”
toddes,
I have plenty of quotes from our founders with the sources they came from that prove what they really thought about Christianity.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
Well done, Boris.
Yeah, Jefferson was an interesting man.
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”
Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
The Constitution empowers the government in all matters of action, while leaving religious opinion to every individual as an unalienable right. Religions were to survive on their merits as perceived by people. Madison rebuked prayer in government and subsequent attempts by religion to encroach upon government in different ways. Government and religion are oil and water, they do not mix well, each suffering from any attempt to do so. If you want to believe in God that’s up to you. If I want to think it’s a silly superstition, that’s up to me. Do not atempt to get me to support your superstition through government, it is not allowed. Not a penny!
eels Fright wrote:
“Do not atempt to get me to support your superstition through government, it is not allowed. Not a penny!”
Yet, the same government requires us to support another person’s decision to murder an unborn child.
Even if the First Continental Congress existed before the writing of the Bill of Rights, the practice of opening up the session with legislative prayer still continued in the Second Continental Congress and so on. Therefore, the practice of prayer was STILL in place at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, signifying the acceptance of legislative prayer, aligning this meaning with the First Amendment.
In addition, even if Justice Douglas was a strict separationist, just the fact that his quote was in dicta, as well as he being a learned man of the law, upholds his view on the support of legislative prayer. For what reason would he state this quote otherwise?
Lynn v. Sekulow is an ongoing debate blog--a blogalogue--about how big (or little) a role faith and religion should play in American politics and government, featuring the two leading voices of the church/state battle: American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Rev. Barry W. Lynn.
Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates’ positions and political party statements, the Rev. Barry Lynn and Jay Sekulow are offering analysis in their individual capacities as lawyers and commentators. They are not speaking on behalf of Americans United for Separation for Church and State or for the American Center for Law & Justice. Those organizations do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this dialogue should be construed as the positions of the respective organizations.
Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus on More to Come
Advertisement
About Beliefnet
Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will
bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness.
More about Beliefnet.
Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Jay Sekulow
posted November 3, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I agree that the idea of “non-sectarian prayer” is theologically untenable. But to me, an atheist, all public prayer is offensive and a violation of my rights not to have religion inflicted on me. The same holds for a “moment of silence.”
It is not the god in the prayer that makes it offensive; rather, it is the act of forcing another to endure a public ritual, whether prayer, moment of silence, wedding, funeral, Christmas, Easter, or even Halloween, against his will.
posted November 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I’m not any fan of prayers of any kind before legislative bodies. My point in the post was just to concede that for the moment, we lost that battle and should now try to be “legally” correct even if “theologically” wrong. I always advise legislators to skip invocations of any kind–in a country with 2000 religions and 15-20 million freethinkers and atheists it is the best thing to do.
posted November 4, 2008 at 2:35 am
I still don’t understand why you are dancing around the real issue: public displays of piety are neither constitutional nor biblical. Simply introducing a minister is an endorsement of his religion. His mere presence there is “respecting an establishment of religion”. That belongs in church, not in a legislative or judicial setting…
posted November 4, 2008 at 8:38 am
Refer to the blog that Jay wrote entitled, “Appeals Court OKs Legislative Prayer.” It deals with a case in Cobb County, Georgia. If prayer in that assembly had been a tradition for well over 200 years, how does it infringe on the wall of separation if the founding fathers approved of it? If it has been going on that long, one can only assume that, apparently, the founding fathers didn’t have a problem with it. Just curious to everybody’s opinion.
posted November 4, 2008 at 8:44 am
Oops…it would help if I read Mr. Lynns blog, for it deals with the same case. I read only the comments. Anyway, my question still stands.
posted November 4, 2008 at 9:46 am
Jeff,
The founding fathers didn’t have a problem with slavery or the fact that women had no say in the government. Therefore it doesn’t matter if the founders approved of a prayer being said publicly. We the people DO NOT approve of it NOW and that is ALL that matters.
posted November 4, 2008 at 11:43 am
Boris,
I’ve not seen any statistics that qualify you to say, “we the people”. It is interesting that in certain comments, you use quotes that show that supposedly the founding fathers did not want any religion in government…but when, something shows that they weren’t as anti-religious as you claim, you resort to the “we the people are this way now” rhetoric.
Show me some unbiased statistics that shows that the majority of people support your position and we’ll discuss it further. Until then, “we the people” doesn’t hold water.
In Dec., 2005 (which I know is kind of old, but not really) a random telephone poll performed by Fox News showed that 81% of Americans disagreed that all religion should be excluded from public life.
83% of Americans believed that nativity scenes should be allowed on public property.
93% believed that “in God we trust” should remain on our currency.
76% believed that the 10 Commandments should be allowed to be displayed on government property.
77% of people thought that the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life.
82% favored allowing public schools to have a prayer during graduation ceremonies.
So, apparently your “we the people” is really not the majority. And “we the people” is not as anti-religious as you claim.
posted November 4, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I agree with you, Jeff. (good percentages) I do not know what is wrong with having prayer or a preacher start out a session with a prayer. As long as if you do not want to participate, you do not have to. Even more, we are a country based on moral values. We even have references to God all over: In our court rooms, on our money, the Presidents usually end addresses with “…God bless…” Even on 9/11, members of congress were on the steps, singing God bless America! It is amazing that the only time we get to know God is in time of trouble. So, why not allow prayer before sessions.
The constitution, in addition to “We the people…” also has: “…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,…” Where do we consider the term “blessings” comes from? Who does the blessing? I believe it is a reference to a Supreme Being (God), where the architects of the constitution realized that there is a higher authority.
posted November 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Amen Jeff. I hate to pick on specific persons(not really), but the difficulty as I see it, with the assertions of the Reverend and Boris that that since everybody can’t agree on a particular position that no one should be able to enjoy or excercise a particular thing,or right if you will. for example prayer in a public place, or a nativity scene on a court house lawn.
I’m with you, if prayer in school, or posting the ten commandments somehow violates our “separation of church-and-state vignette”, wouldn’t someone 250 years ago spoke up right away. Are we so proud and narcissistic that we can claim to better know the minds of great men like Adams,Jeffeson,Franklin and on and on………
In fact our legislators continuously add to and enforce new restrictions on our behaviors almost everyday. From motorcycle helmet laws to seat belt laws. How is it a woman can check into a planned parent hood and call it a medical procedure to remove an unwanted baby from her womb, and I get a ticket for choosing not to wear my seatbelt? Which decision has a bigger impact on humanity? After all it’s my body right? But I digress.
We the people don’t agree on a lot of things as a body. We can’t agree as to whether or not or even when an unborn fetus should be conferred human rights and protections, and yet our founders did confer these rights on our posterity. (In case you are wondering; posterity refers to our unborn generations) That means your children, and their children and so on. If we allow 3000 a day to be terminated one thing is for sure; there will be one group of people who’ll never get to choose anything!
The fact is we have already decided the life issue in the courts.
Everytime we sentence a mother to jail for harming her unborn baby with drugs or alcohol, or when a woman and her unborn are murdered and the perpetrator is charged with a double homicide we answer the question. Have we forgotten the Scott Peterson case?
Democrats love to cling to this issue and defy all attempts to limit abortions for any reason for reasons of protecting the life of the mother. I am interested in how many womens lifes were saved by delivering all but the head of the baby, sticking a sharp object into the base of the childs skull and sucking out the brains and then pulling out the dead child?
When are we (meaning conservative christians) going to put this arguement together and have this debat.
Sorry to go so long. I don’t see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and be pro abortion. I can just picture the scene on judgement day.
Dear heavenly father, I did my best to uphold a womans right to kill her unborn child, to support same sex marriage, and to live a green life.
posted November 4, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Jeff,
You said: I’ve not seen any statistics that qualify you to say, “we the people”. It is interesting that in certain comments, you use quotes that show that supposedly the founding fathers did not want any religion in government…but when, something shows that they weren’t as anti-religious as you claim, you resort to the “we the people are this way now” rhetoric.
Boris says: I don’t have to resort to anything but the truth and our founder’s own words. I have never seen anything that could show our founders wanted religion in our government or that could possibly support any of your revisionist claims. It’s amazing how you can look right at our founder’s own words and act they were never said. “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson. “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin.
You said: Show me some unbiased statistics that shows that the majority of people support your position and we’ll discuss it further. Until then, “we the people” doesn’t hold water.
Boris says: We have laws that ban prayer in public places like schools so how did they get in and stay in place if the majority doesn’t want them there? Because we the people want them there.
You said: In Dec., 2005 (which I know is kind of old, but not really) a random telephone poll performed by Fox News showed that 81% of Americans disagreed that all religion should be excluded from public life.
Boris says: Oh yeah, an unbiased poll from the right wing Christian fanatic wackos running Fox News. We all believe that it’s fair and balanced. If Fox News was really fair and balanced would they have to keep telling us they were? If Christianity really were true, would Christians have to keep claiming to have the truth? Truth doesn’t demand belief. Your religion does. Case closed.
You said: So, apparently your “we the people” is really not the majority. And “we the people” is not as anti-religious as you claim.
Boris says: Then why are you fundamentalists complaining and trying to get so many laws overturned? Apparently your arguments are as empty as the ones used to support your religious superstitions.
posted November 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Boris,
As for the fox poll, if it was a polling of Christians, then it would be biased. However, it was a random poll over the phone. Yep, random. So, the results were accurate, whether you like it or not.
posted November 4, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Jeff,
Sure. If you fundamentalists were in the majority as you claim then our laws would reflect that. But they don’t do they? How do you explain THAT?
posted November 5, 2008 at 8:34 am
Well, here’s my opinion, which is what it is…an opinion. First off, I didn’t say that fundamentalists were the majority in the country…I know better than that. The poll simply showed that the American people were not as anti-religious as some claim…..But back to the subject. I believe people in this country are forced to make a choice between their wallets and their morals. There aren’t many conservative democrats that run for office. For example, Obama may have a better economic plan, but then is liberal concerning religion in government. I don’t believe it is right, but many are blinded by their pocketbook and forget about morals at voting time…That’s just my opinion.
posted November 5, 2008 at 9:55 am
Jeff,
Our Constitution specifically denies religion in government. People who want to create a Christian theocracy like Hitler’s Germany are very dangerous and anti-American. You people try to force your religion on the rest of us by forcing it into our government and even our public schools with your pseudo-scientific hoaxes like Intelligent Design. Then you wonder why there are people like me helping to stamp out your false anti-science and anti-human religion. Your own words prove why Christianity must be completely eliminated through education. If people only study the history of Christian atrocities and its 2000 year long war on science and scientists, not to mention freedom, they would realize just how false Christianity really is. Christianity must not survive another century if we are to survive as a race.
posted November 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
Boris,
I’m not gonna argue with you. I’m sorry you feel such about Christianity. But the fact is that no matter what you try to do, Christianity will remain around forever. Hmm…anti-American….let’s see….”Then you wonder why there are people like me helping to stamp out your false anti-science and anti-human religion. Your own words prove why Christianity must be completely eliminated through education. If people only study the history of Christian atrocities and its 2000 year long war on science and scientists, not to mention freedom, they would realize just how false Christianity really is. Christianity must not survive another century if we are to survive as a race.” And you call me anti-American?!!
The constitution prevents government in religion, not religion in government, as evidenced by the over 200 year old tradition of governmental prayer in Georgia, among other things….If you really believe that Christianity is Hitler’s Germany, then you don’t have a clue as to what Christianity is. By the way, we will never force people to convert, as Hitler did. Joshua 24:15,”CHOOSE
posted November 5, 2008 at 5:25 pm
For Boris, a quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“I’ve lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.”
- Speech to the Constitutional Convention (1787-06-28)
As for your Jefferson quote, it is listed on the Spurious Quotes page for the Jefferson Library (http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html)
Better quotes by him are:
“I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests.” –Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816.
“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.
I enjoy that second one. The establishment of a religion was not part of the Constitution but was left to the State. However it appears that even that right is being abolished.
You may want to research your sources for quotations before treating them as gospel. Thank you.
posted November 5, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I agree with you, Jeff, and good post toddes.
Should a judge rule against religion? Is not that infringing on religious rights? It seems that they are legislating from the bench. Some call that ‘judicial tyranny’.
In the constitution, the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It should be noted, as far as I know, that without exception, the Framers were Christian or believed in God (Deism). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. The Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.
I also found that Franklin Requested Prayers in the Constitutional Convention.
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day’s session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth–that God governs in the Affairs of Men.” “I also believe,” Franklin continued, that “without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.” Franklin’s motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.
Our founding fathers had Christian values and recognized a supreme being (God) and that we need his aid. Franklin’s reference to Babel, I believe, is to remind them that we need to build a nation based on Godly values and never think we are our own god.
So, I believe, it is appropriate that all sessions and meetings have the right to have prayer, and no judge has the authority to take that away.
Even when the President is sworn in, they end with: “…so help me God.”
posted November 5, 2008 at 8:51 pm
toddes,
I have plenty of quotes from our founders with the sources they came from that prove what they really thought about Christianity.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
posted November 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Well done, Boris.
Yeah, Jefferson was an interesting man.
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”
Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
posted November 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The Constitution empowers the government in all matters of action, while leaving religious opinion to every individual as an unalienable right. Religions were to survive on their merits as perceived by people. Madison rebuked prayer in government and subsequent attempts by religion to encroach upon government in different ways. Government and religion are oil and water, they do not mix well, each suffering from any attempt to do so. If you want to believe in God that’s up to you. If I want to think it’s a silly superstition, that’s up to me. Do not atempt to get me to support your superstition through government, it is not allowed. Not a penny!
posted November 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm
eels Fright wrote:
“Do not atempt to get me to support your superstition through government, it is not allowed. Not a penny!”
Yet, the same government requires us to support another person’s decision to murder an unborn child.
posted September 28, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Even if the First Continental Congress existed before the writing of the Bill of Rights, the practice of opening up the session with legislative prayer still continued in the Second Continental Congress and so on. Therefore, the practice of prayer was STILL in place at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, signifying the acceptance of legislative prayer, aligning this meaning with the First Amendment.
In addition, even if Justice Douglas was a strict separationist, just the fact that his quote was in dicta, as well as he being a learned man of the law, upholds his view on the support of legislative prayer. For what reason would he state this quote otherwise?