[dcolton]

Why do athiest continually try to rape the intent of the Constitution and FORCE their values on Americans?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126744,00.html

EVERETT, Wash. � The city of Everett (search) is the new battleground in the debate over the Ten Commandments and where to draw the line in the separation of church and state.

A granite monument of the Ten Commandments (search) is tucked among some bushes in front of the Everett Police Station, along with more visible World War I and II memorials standing near the same corner of the building.

A 20-year-old local man has filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying the Ten Commandments monument on city property amounts to the government endorsing religion.

The American Civil Liberties Union (search) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (search) have supported the legal action brought by Jesse Card, who went to high school in Everett and is an atheist.

Despite some recent court rulings that have gone against other similar markers on public property, Everett is fighting the lawsuit, claiming its monument has historical importance. It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1959 as part of a nationwide push to give young people a moral compass to live by.

City officials say public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the Ten Commandments where it is.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why do athiest continually try to rape the intent of the Constitution and FORCE their values on Americans?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126744,00.html

Or do Christians rape the intent of the constitution and force their religion on all of America?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Or do Christians rape the intent of the constitution and force their religion on all of America?

Our forefathers were Christian and based this nation on Christianity. Religious tolerance is a foundation of this country - not intolerance.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Our forefathers were Christian and based this nation on Christianity.

Actually our forefathers were Puritans and recognized that their religion didn't belong in politics. That's the whole premise of separation of church and state. However, I don't see that putting the Ten Commandments up in front of a POLICE STATION violates this separation. This man has no case IMO...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Actually our forefathers were Puritans and recognized that their religion didn't belong in politics. That's the whole premise of separation of church and state. However, I don't see that putting the Ten Commandments up in front of a POLICE STATION violates this separation. This man has no case IMO...

I'm sure it will do marvelous things for the police and it's reputation in certain groups currently under severe pressure and scrutiny from the police. I'm sure those groups will think it's completely OK.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Actually our forefathers were Puritans and recognized that their religion didn't belong in politics. That's the whole premise of separation of church and state. However, I don't see that putting the Ten Commandments up in front of a POLICE STATION violates this separation. This man has no case IMO...

Actually, no. Our forefathers were not all Puritans. The intent was not to keep religion out of politics but to avoid having a state sponsored Chirch like the Church of England. The goal was to make sure the church, as an organization, had no role in the decision making process with the exception of grassroot and lobby efforts.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Actually our forefathers were Puritans and recognized that their religion didn't belong in politics. That's the whole premise of separation of church and state. However, I don't see that putting the Ten Commandments up in front of a POLICE STATION violates this separation. This man has no case IMO...

Right.

Our nation's founding is based on people fleeing religous states. From the pilgrims, to most of the founding fathers. Kings acting in the name of Christianity, wars fought over it, etc.

[Tater Salad]

Atheists in California? Never would have put those two together. I wish these people would shut up. Ten Commandments stays. Too made they threw out Moore over that.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Our forefathers were Christian and based this nation on Christianity. Religious tolerance is a foundation of this country - not intolerance.

Are you sure it's that straightforward? Linky. Quote:

• John Adams: Unitarian
• Sam Adams: doesn't say, but his quotes are generally very Christian
• Ben Franklin: Deist (believes in God, but rejects all "revealed" religions, preferring reason)
• Alexander Hamilton: Episcopalian
• Patrick Henry: some kind of Christian
• John Jay: ditto
• Thomas Jefferson: Deist
• George Washington: Tough to pin down - could be Christian could be Deist, evidence both ways - seems almost like modern politicians, keep up the appearance of Christianity whether you really believe in it or not.

Certainly looks like the biggies on the list weren't Christian (Franklin, Jefferson, possibly Washington). The only other one I'd be interested in would be Monroe (primary author of the Constitution). Note, though, that the Bill of Rights was Jefferson's baby.

BlackGriffen

[Tater Salad]

Okay, but their main belief was in a GOD. It wasn't in Jesus we trust. It was the belief that there is a higher being and a creator, and that there are transcendent morals. That is no religion to push down someone's throat. It is morality.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Are you sure it's that straightforward? Linky. Quote:

• John Adams: Unitarian
• Sam Adams: doesn't say, but his quotes are generally very Christian
• Ben Franklin: Deist (believes in God, but rejects all "revealed" religions, preferring reason)
• Alexander Hamilton: Episcopalian
• Patrick Henry: some kind of Christian
• John Jay: ditto
• Thomas Jefferson: Deist
• George Washington: Tough to pin down - could be Christian could be Deist, evidence both ways - seems almost like modern politicians, keep up the appearance of Christianity whether you really believe in it or not.

Certainly looks like the biggies on the list weren't Christian (Franklin, Jefferson, possibly Washington). The only other one I'd be interested in would be Monroe (primary author of the Constitution). Note, though, that the Bill of Rights was Jefferson's baby.

BlackGriffen

I can't find the link, but the Smithsonian actually had a great exhibit and website covering this information. Still looking

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Okay, but their main belief was in a GOD. It wasn't in Jesus we trust. It was the belief that there is a higher being and a creator, and that there are transcendent morals. That is no religion to push down someone's throat. It is morality.

Belief in a God, which is religion, and morality are not interchangeable. There are amoral christians, buddhists, muslims, hindus, and jews just as there are moral atheists.

Please don't conflate morality and religion any more.

BlackGriffen

[Tater Salad]

Okay, so if there is no high being, God, etc., than how is there any absolute, black & white wrong?

[BRussell]

The time during which the US was founded - the enlightenment - was characterized by its reaction against religious control. For a millennium, the church had been the dominant power in people's lives. Sure, most of the founders weren't atheists, but what made them unique was how non-religious they were, relative to their time, not how religious they were.

In any case, this is an example, like every single one of these cases, of gov't supporting religion. Can't they just put up their symbols in their own homes and churches? I don't understand why christian conservatives can't seem to get along without gov't help.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Okay, but their main belief was in a GOD. It wasn't in Jesus we trust. It was the belief that there is a higher being and a creator, and that there are transcendent morals. That is no religion to push down someone's throat. It is morality.

But who is to say Christian morality is the only morality?

Why can't a Hindu have a monument saying that thou shall not harm a sacred beast (cow) and put it in texas steer country?

[Tater Salad]

The Ten Commandments are Christian exclusive? The Ten Commandments from Sanai are not just one religion. And what's so offensive to atheists besides #1?

1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.

2. You shall not make a graven image.

3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.

4. You shall not break the Sabbath.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Are you sure it's that straightforward? Linky. Quote:

• John Adams: Unitarian
• Sam Adams: doesn't say, but his quotes are generally very Christian
• Ben Franklin: Deist (believes in God, but rejects all "revealed" religions, preferring reason)
• Alexander Hamilton: Episcopalian
• Patrick Henry: some kind of Christian
• John Jay: ditto
• Thomas Jefferson: Deist
• George Washington: Tough to pin down - could be Christian could be Deist, evidence both ways - seems almost like modern politicians, keep up the appearance of Christianity whether you really believe in it or not.

Certainly looks like the biggies on the list weren't Christian (Franklin, Jefferson, possibly Washington). The only other one I'd be interested in would be Monroe (primary author of the Constitution). Note, though, that the Bill of Rights was Jefferson's baby.

BlackGriffen

This is part of the article I am referring too. Quite different from you analysis and it comes from the Library of Congress. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
The entire exhibit is relevant, not just the link.

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The time during which the US was founded - the enlightenment - was characterized by its reaction against religious control. For a millennium, the church had been the dominant power in people's lives. Sure, most of the founders weren't atheists, but what made them unique was how non-religious they were, relative to their time, not how religious they were.

ON THE CONTRARY! Religion was of the utmost importance.

[macvillage.net]

You may want to hear Washington's much ignored views on political parties as well:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But who is to say Christian morality is the only morality?

Why can't a Hindu have a monument saying that thou shall not harm a sacred beast (cow) and put it in texas steer country?

Who says they can't? Nonetheless, we are talking about Heritage as well as the role Christianity played in the formationf of the United States. Religion is an extremely important part of our heritage...Christianity is an extremely important part of our heritage. Whether you look at the ten commandments as part of history (American) or religion, the role is undeniable.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Okay, so if there is no high being, God, etc., than how is there any absolute, black & white wrong?

There isn't any absolute black and white wrong. Simple as that.

[Kitschy]

Separation of Church and State isn't part of the constitution.

Even so, how is a display of the ten commandments forcing religion on anyone?

Finally, even if the display of the ten commandments was somehow compelling you to follow them, tell me how that can be a bad thing? If more people followed the ten commandments, our world would be in a lot better shape.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
And what's so offensive to atheists besides #1?

Are you sure you wanted to ask that question? The first four are stupid, IMO, are strictly religious in nature, and the government has no business promoting them. Three others are a matter of opinion but are none of the government's business. That leaves three that everyone can probably agree on, and we don't need the Ten Commandments to be reminded of them. Conclusion: except in a historical context, the only discernible purpose of erecting monuments to the Ten Commandments in public places is religious indoctrination, and I don't want to be indoctrinated. In other words, as dcolton puts it, stop trying to force your values on the rest of us. Thanks much.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Are you sure you wanted to ask that question? The first four are stupid, IMO, are strictly religious in nature, and the government has no business promoting them. Three others are a matter of opinion but are none of the government's business. That leaves three that everyone can probably agree on, and we don't need the Ten Commandments to be reminded of them. Conclusion: except in a historical context, the only discernible purpose of erecting monuments to the Ten Commandments in public places is religious indoctrination, and I don't want to be indoctrinated. In other words, as dcolton puts it, stop trying to force your values on the rest of us. Thanks much.

And as you put it...what harm does the ten commandments do to you?

And...what is the problem displaying the Ten Commandments as historical documents...or are you threatened by morals?

Edited to add smiley. Can't remember if zig was one of the rational lefties or not. Developer, check on that for me please. And while you are at it...spell check this post and look for any grammitical errors.

[IonCable]

My feeling on issues like this is let the community decide. Hold a vote. If the community wants the Ten Commandments displayed then they should. That's not the Government forcing religon, that is the community saying we like/dislike this. The Bill Rights, as said before, prevents the Government (Federal) from establishing a National Religon. So thing that has been lost in this country the ability of communities to decide issues. If I'm a Christian and have to take down the Ten Commandments in the name of tolerance of Atheism, should the Atheist not allow the Ten Commandments in the name of Tolerance? I guess I don't care about such things unless it has a DIRECT effect on me. This isn't apathy it's live and let live. Are the Ten Commandments causing harm to anyone? Even an Atheist should rcognize that the princples set forth in the Commandments are moral and good to live by.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Separation of Church and State isn't part of the constitution.

Sure it is, it's in the First Amendment. It doesn't use the specific words "separation of church and state," but the principle is there; the phrase "separation of church and state" is just a short hand for the establishment and free exercise clauses.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who says they can't? Nonetheless, we are talking about Heritage as well as the role Christianity played in the formationf of the United States. Religion is an extremely important part of our heritage...Christianity is an extremely important part of our heritage. Whether you look at the ten commandments as part of history (American) or religion, the role is undeniable.

PETA didn't get away with it. It was deemed harassment towards the beef industry during that whole Opera thing.

Originally posted by dcolton:
And as you put it...what harm does the ten commandments do to you?

And...what is the problem displaying the Ten Commandments as historical documents...or are you threatened by morals?

But why can't we add other people's morals... even if you personally disagree with them?

Some don't eat beef, some believe it's a sin to eat shellfish, some against non-kosher foods. Or show your face.

You know there are some denominations of christianity that believe music and dancing is sinful (Ashcroft being one to fall into this ultra-conservative category).

Why can't we have monuments that say all these are moral wrongs? Why can't we have a monument declaring Elvis to be a devil for doing both onstage in Memphis?

Heck why can't we have a monument declaring a church chior sinful?

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Sure it is, it's in the First Amendment. It doesn't use the specific words "separation of church and state," but the principle is there; the phrase "separation of church and state" is just a short hand for the establishment and free exercise clauses.

I guess I should add the quotes. "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution.

As often as it's quoted, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people would think it was.

[Tater Salad]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
There isn't any absolute black and white wrong. Simple as that.

WTF? There is an absolute. Yes giving to poor people is right. Yes helping them find a job is right. No, raping them is not right. No, murdering them and then having sex with their body is wrong. There's no "It'd be okay to kill him as long as he died quietly" ********.

Do you go to church or ANYTHING?

Yes, if more people weren't justifying wrong, like NAMBLA, we'd be alot better off.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
PETA didn't get away with it. It was deemed harassment towards the beef industry during that whole Opera thing.


But why can't we add other people's morals... even if you personally disagree with them?

Some don't eat beef, some believe it's a sin to eat shellfish, some against non-kosher foods. Or show your face.

You know there are some denominations of christianity that believe music and dancing is sinful (Ashcroft being one to fall into this ultra-conservative category).

Why can't we have monuments that say all these are moral wrongs? Why can't we have a monument declaring Elvis to be a devil for doing both onstage in Memphis?

Heck why can't we have a monument declaring a church chior sinful?

I noticed how you avoided the arguments you can't handle.

As for PETA...they are a political organization, not a religion. They consistently break the law and are nothing more than thugs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Do you go to church or ANYTHING?

So not going to 'church' is wrong? What if I go to a synagogue?

Your making yourself very clear... and it's quite upsetting.

[Tater Salad]

Church or anything. Anything is a synagogue, temple, etc.
Do you think I'm Christian? Church is a little more common than synagogue, so I assumed that you would also identify it as a place of worship, and would also think that anything would include other places of worship, but I guess indoctrinated liberals didn't catch on top that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcolton:
And as you put it...what harm does the ten commandments do to you?

Nothing in particular - if you want to erect a monument to the Ten Commandments in front of your house or church, be my guest. I just don't want the government to be in the religion business. It's bad for government and bad for religion.

And...what is the problem displaying the Ten Commandments as historical documents...or are you threatened by morals?

(a) I clearly stated that I have no problem referring to the Ten Commandments in a historical context, as on the Supreme Court building. That's different from displaying them for the purpose of religious indoctrination. The line is not always clear but IMO we should err on the religion-neutral side. That's what the Moore case was about.

(b) No, I'm not "threatened by morals," but your morals are probably different from my morals. I might be opposed to the use of caffeine - do you want me erect a monument to that effect in front of City Hall? Probably not. If you don't want to make graven images, that's your friggin' business. I don't need City Hall erecting monuments to it.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
WTF? There is an absolute. Yes giving to poor people is right. Yes helping them find a job is right. No, raping them is not right. No, murdering them and then having sex with their body is wrong. There's no "It'd be okay to kill him as long as he died quietly" ********.

Do you go to church or ANYTHING?

Yes, if more people weren't justifying wrong, like NAMBLA, we'd be alot better off.

Soldiers murder others and in war it's sanctioned. Everything is relative, and there is no actual universal law from a philosophical stand point. From a societal stand point and if one isn't an asshat, then there's obvious an need for laws and a personal code of conduct, and of course we shouldn't be going around murdering and raping people, but this is different than an absolute moral black and white. Your government and those of many others murders people, but they find justifications for it. Last time I checked, there's still no universal moral book written, and to me, the bible and all other religious texts do not count as definitive proof of the existence of an absolute set of black and white morals.

One doesn't need to attend a religious function to acquire a good set of personal morals. Last time I checked, there are a lot of bigotted and homophobic people in the world who think they have morals.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Church or anything. Anything is a synagogue, temple, etc.
Do you think I'm Christian? Church is a little more common than synagogue, so I assumed that you would also identify it as a place of worship, and would also think that anything would include other places of worship, but I guess indoctrinated liberals didn't catch on top that.

Those are two different things.

Church is one place, 'house of worshop' has been illegal in most parts of the world for most of the last millenium as Christianity has been the law for a large some of the world.

Far from 'the same' in the english language.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Separation of Church and State isn't part of the constitution.

Even so, how is a display of the ten commandments forcing religion on anyone?

Finally, even if the display of the ten commandments was somehow compelling you to follow them, tell me how that can be a bad thing? If more people followed the ten commandments, our world would be in a lot better shape.

How about a display of quotes and precepts from the Koran? Any objection to that?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Our forefathers were Christian and based this nation on Christianity. Religious tolerance is a foundation of this country - not intolerance.

actually american forefathers were natives tribes, who did not even know who christ was,
shoulkd we go back to worsipping rthe great white sprit?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Church or anything. Anything is a synagogue, temple, etc.
Do you think I'm Christian? Church is a little more common than synagogue, so I assumed that you would also identify it as a place of worship, and would also think that anything would include other places of worship, but I guess indoctrinated liberals didn't catch on top that.

I guess this is what myself and others object to: your assumption that "church" is the normative term for house of worship and that everything else falls into the "other" category. It seems to imply that you assume Christianity is the normative religion. All we're trying to do is just get you to look at the assumptions you make and realize that those assumptions indirectly say something about you.

In my mind, to say that the United States is a "Christian" nation is wrong and actually diminishes one of the best qualities about this country, it's religious tolerance. The United States is a religious nation where members of all religions have been welcome to practice their faith. However, that tolerance has been missing of late in respect to many members of the Muslim faith. So, do you see my point?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually american forefathers were natives tribes, who did not even know who christ was,
shoulkd we go back to worsipping rthe great white sprit?

No, you are wrong. Did native Americans forge our government?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, you are wrong. Did native Americans forge our government?

You're correct; they didn't forge it. They just got slaughtered and slammed in reservations by our early government "Christians," often wearing U. S. Army uniforms, much like those early "Christians" enslaved, murdered, and sold black people.

I see the pattern here; everything you disagree with is an "attack." Make sure you check under your bed tonight, to make sure there aren't any homosexual atheists, and ungrateful Canadians waiting to attack you.

Please try to explain to me, what it's like to live a life so fearful. How sad!

[Tater Salad]

Ah. Christian bashing is back in season. Hey Gestapo, can you insert "I made a big, immature post" in place of his post? Because it looks like you just blamed Christians for any problems in the last several centuries.

This country is a majority of Christians by demographics. It does not mean the only. You assume that. I don't give a **** if you're a Muslim, plant-worshiper, Jew, Buddhist, or anything. But you're not changing our history.

Karl(Marx): Explain to me how it is to live in fear of a big old evil Christian. A fear of anyone with a belief in absolute right and wrong. How sad!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who says they can't? Nonetheless, we are talking about Heritage as well as the role Christianity played in the formationf of the United States. Religion is an extremely important part of our heritage...Christianity is an extremely important part of our heritage. Whether you look at the ten commandments as part of history (American) or religion, the role is undeniable.

True.

And we know how

6. You shall not murder.

and

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

were applied to First Nations to make America sooooo great.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
This country is a majority of Christians by demographics. It does not mean the only. You assume that. I don't give a **** if you're a Muslim, plant-worshiper, Jew, Buddhist, or anything. But you're not changing our history.

I think it is time for you to give a ****, for this is what your country is made of.

And your history is yours in your head. Those who can correct you died by the tens of millions.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who says they can't? Nonetheless, we are talking about Heritage as well as the role Christianity played in the formationf of the United States. Religion is an extremely important part of our heritage...Christianity is an extremely important part of our heritage. Whether you look at the ten commandments as part of history (American) or religion, the role is undeniable.

A question: Does heritage really matter? IMO, the constitution matters, not the heritage. Slavery is part of our heritage too, but you wouldn't argue for keeping slavery today.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Actually our forefathers were Puritans and recognized that their religion didn't belong in politics. That's the whole premise of separation of church and state. However, I don't see that putting the Ten Commandments up in front of a POLICE STATION violates this separation. This man has no case IMO...

No, many were deists and a few were anglicans.

[spauldingg]

the mere concept of putting the ten commandments statue up is against the ten commandments...

graven image: n. an idol or fetish carved in wood or stone

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is part of the article I am referring too. Quite different from you analysis and it comes from the Library of Congress. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
The entire exhibit is relevant, not just the link.

Nice post, except that the analysis was not mine. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. Here's the bit from the site on Ol' GW

The first President's faith is a bit harder to pin down.

Many Christian writers and commentators point to Washington's twenty-four page manuscript book, titled, Daily Sacrifice. It was found in April 1891 among a collection of Washington's papers in his confirmed handwriting when he was about the age of twenty. In it he prays:

Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
. . . in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life.
Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state. continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

In his Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, Washington said:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

However, during his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).

Washington also used the title "Supreme Architect" (a Freemasonary term of which he became a devout member, served as the head of the original Alexandria Lodge No. 22, and presided over the laying of the U.S. Capitol in a Mason apron).

According to Bishop White, Washington's pastor for nearly 25 years at the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, as well as Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, the President would leave the service before communion was served. (The Eucharist or Holy Communion is considered an essential part of salvation for Catholics and for many members of litergical churches.)

Lewis however defended her step-father's faith in a letter:

I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

Thomas Jefferson was less charitable:

[Washington] had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

I also think that in looking for the intent behind the Bill of Rights, Jefferson is the go-to guy because it was his baby, and his support of the Constitution was provisional upon its inclusion.

We can throw Adams and Pickering into the list, though, because of this gem. To whit:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Were the words written on the treaty approved by Pickering and Adams and ratified by the Senate.

I think that's a pretty clear indication of the separation between church and state as it was intended.

BlackGriffen

[Face Ache]

It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1959 as part of a nationwide push to give young people a moral compass to live by.

North has shifted since then.

1959 eh?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
should we go back to worshipping the great white spirit? [edited for broken collarbone]

You mean you've stopped worshipping the great white spirit? I worship him every weekend. Him and the great green apple spirit. In one glass - perfect harmony. Lately I've notice that his heavy brother, the great red-eyed spirit tends to come and sit on my head the morning after my meeting with the great white spirit. Still trying to work out if this is all a coincidence.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I also think that in looking for the intent behind the Bill of Rights, Jefferson is the go-to guy because it was his baby, and his support of the Constitution was provisional upon its inclusion.

Jefferson was the go-to guy in Virginia. He wrote the bill disestablishing the Anglican Church there. But Madison (a Church vestryman as was Washington -- at the same church about half a mile from my house) was the one that got that bill passed. Jefferson was in France at the time as the US Ambassador. Jefferson had essentially nothing directly to do with the drafting of the US Constitution because of his posting overseas.

His bill disestablishing the official church of Virginia was influential on the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment. But remember, Jefferson was a Federalist, and the Federalists were against all the Amendments. They thought they were unnecessary. It was antifederalists like George Mason who pushed for the Bill of Rights, not Jefferson.

The text of the First Amendment was written by James Madison. And Madison said the other things that you should use to interpret it are the text itself, and the ratification instruments of the various state ratification conventions. All this reliance on private letters isn't really all that instructive. It's interesting, and maybe useful to see what they had in mind. But it isn't any kind of slam-dunk.