From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
like it or not...
Published on June 12, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In History
A lot of rhetoric gets spent in the political arena over our founding fathers and their intent in regards to our religious status as a nation. Many on the right contend that we are somehow a "christian" nation. Others, trying to seem more inclusive, call it a "judeo-christian" nation.

But fact is, we're not.

I've written in the past on this subject and have had discussions on the subject on other threads as well. I'm not gonna rehash old debates here, but just present a few key pieces of evidence that show that our founders, despite whatever faith each of them individually held, were intent on ensuring our church and state remain seperate.

Using metephoric "God" references does not make us a Christian nation. Einstein used metephoric references, but was indeed, an athiest. As have countless others thru history. That does not a christian nation make.

Remember, these founders, not only those who were directly involved with the process of writing our early documents, but the entire citizenry they represented, left England, many of them, to escape a country where a country's religion and government were one in the same. This caused them, members of different sects and faiths, to flee, seeking a land of non oppression.

When it was their turn to set things up, they did not want their religion and goverment mixed like a boilermaker. Thus the words in the 1st article of the Constitution.

But of course, everyone wants to disect those words for their own purpose or side of the argument. Let's do something different. Let's look at how the founders themselves acted after the United States was established.

In 1791, John Adams signed a treaty written by his predecessor and founding father, Thomas Jefferson. It was a treaty with the muslim nation of Tripoli. this is what the treaty said...

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ...
-- Article 11, "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,"

And Adams had this to say about the treaty...

Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.-- John Adams, upon ratifying the Treaty of Tripoli quoted from Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, Vol. 2 (1776-1818), (1931)

This treaty was ratified by the US Congress and was extremely clear on how our nation, and our founders, were about church and state dating, let alone get married.

Jefferson also wrote to the Baptists and assured them that the Constitution article ensured they had "built a wall of seperation between church and state." And obviously, when he wrote the treaty of Tripoli, he hadn't changed his mind, nor was he isolated in his belief. President Adams and the Congress concurred.

Things like "one nation under God" which people argue is proof that we are a Christian nation, weren' teven added until the 1950's. "God Bless America" was another 20th century invention.

And the fact is we are a secular nation. And that 's the way the founders wanted it. It wasn't that they wanted religious freedom for all, but we were a christian nation, as they contend. The early work of the founders in official government business shows that all too clear. this non interventionist policy between government and religion does not only apply to christians and jews, but to all religions.

James Madison said...

" ...seperation of church and state is to forever keep them from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soils of Europe."

In the 1789 case, Minor v Ohio, the court again firmly and clearly established that government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible when they said...

Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. It's laws are divine, not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human government. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better is for both.

Whereas certainly, Christian values did influence many of the founders to think as they thought or act as they acted as individuals, it is clear that when they were speaking as or for the government, they knew to keep their religion out of it.

They knew the dangers of co-mingling government and religion and kept them seperate. they saw how England and Europe had been hurt by that arrangement. We need to as well.

Or to paraphrase someone who once said some very wise words on the subject, "Only when the government is free from religion do we truly have freedom of religion."

That does not mean that individuals will not use their own religious faiths and values when making their own decisions. But when it is the government making the decision, whether or not god would be pleased or displeased should not be considered. The only thing that is under consideration is the health and well being of our nation.

As Jefferson said...

"Question even the existence of God. If there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason over that of blind folded fear."







Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Jun 25, 2007

For my own benefit, Lula, I'd love to hear you explain how exactly homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. What evidence would you use to back that claim?


How does government regulate marriages presently? By issuing Marriage licences for one. All constititional policies, its forms reference male and female.

Do you remember the hoopla that went on in Massachusetts shortly after homosex marriage went into effect? The state wasn't ready in the licencing department and when some same gender couples went before some of the clerks in order to be issued a marriage licence, the trouble ensued. Negatively speaking, the clerks themselves showed that it was unconstititional becasue they refused to marry these folks and got the boot and into legal trouble.

Marriage between a man and a woman was authorized by God in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of time. This is part of the Natural Law.

Rightwinger pointed out the Constitution is based upon the Laws of nature and nature's God and on this basis marriage between a man and a woman has been Constitutionally protected and encouraged. Homosexualists seek to change this natural system and repeal laws that have been on the books for years and years limiting the sex and number of people in a marriage.

My state has a DOMA law which regulates that marriage is between one man and one woman. In other words, government confers certain rights upon the union of one man and one woman in traditional marriage...and that's becasue lawful marriage goes far beyond just the mutual affection of the two parties, it is an irreplacable social good that necessitates the conferring of those rights and protections.

Same-gender sex goes against the Natural law...the body parts don't fit. It's flawed. By conferring 'marriage' benefits upon this flawed and unnatural sexual relationship, the State becomes its active promoter and works against the common good. That's not only wrong but unConstititional as well.
on Jun 25, 2007
Hmmm, very interesting. I wonder how does the French government treat Muslim women and girls? Are they allowed to wear the full head scarfs to school which is very much a part of their relgious expression of Islam?



No French student, whether at High School (or its French equivalent) or at College can wear openly a religious symbol.


No, they can't. Catholics can't wear crucifixes, Jews can't wear the Star of David, and so on. The French State enforces real secularism in relation to religious expression of all kinds. They're very serious about it. The issue of religious influence over the State was one of the reasons behind the French Revolution. They chopped peoples' heads off over it (among other things).

I wonder how does the French government treat Muslim women and girls?


They treat Muslims who are French citizens as French citizens. They treat Muslims who aren't citizens with fear and contempt. The French aren't particularly brave or able (if they were they wouldn't be French) but they do contempt really well. You haven't been properly despised if you haven't been despised by the French. They're also quite good at running away (ask the Germans).

I don't like the French. Or the Germans.


on Jun 25, 2007
While I agree with your sentiments here, I disagree with your use of the word unconstitutional.

The problem I have with homosexual marriage is that it's taking a word that means one thing and trying to make it mean another thing. I can't see any (legal) reason to not allow any couple to get all the legal rights of marriage, but you're not going to call it that. It's not a marriage. It's not between a man and a woman, which is what marriage is by the definition given to us by God, society, the Bible, since the institution was created. I don't care what you call it, just don't take my word. It means more than you could understand.
on Jun 25, 2007
How does government regulate marriages presently? By issuing Marriage licences for one


the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. so, by unconstitutional, do you mean that you have researched every state's constitution and deemed each and every one of them unconstitutional in issuing any civil union for any same sex couple?

on Jun 25, 2007
but what is more comical is how this conversation from the religious right ended up on the same old cliches...abortion, gay marriage and the french. ya'll need a new batttle cry, lol.
on Jun 26, 2007
oh really? better tell this guy that.
---Sean

+LOL+....that's great! I'm sure that was posted by someone not unlike you Sean; satirical, and meant to poke fun at the Christian Right. You don't really believe it, do you? I mean..."it's been 20 years we last legally burned a witch on campus"? Come on. No....you probably do believe it.
Though, as a Christian, I do believe, whole-heartedly, that Satan is after our souls....and denying that only gives him power.
It was a line from a movie, what movie I can't remember just now, but it was essentially true...."The greatest trick Satan ever played was convincing mankind he doesn't exist."
Denying religious faith is a dangerous thing.


America is the least secular nation on earth - with the possible exception of Iran, which it resembles closely.
---Emperor

+LOL+
Yeah; why, just this morning, I've already stoned a woman to death for dishonoring her family by being raped, and another for blatantly showing her wrist as the whore handed her money to a vendor in the marketplace. Yesterday, I beat a young girl to death for lifting the hem of her burka as she crossed the street. I saw her ankles, the slut! I also held a thieving child as they cut off his hand for stealing a piece of 10 cent candy. He struggled, but got what was coming to him, God be praised!

Anybody put a gun to your head and force you into a church on Sundays, Emp? Didn't think so.

Yeah...America is just like Iran. I love hyperbolic statements like that.




on Jun 26, 2007
Yeah...America is just like Iran. I love hyperbolic statements like that.





Of course you love hyperbolic statements. You identify with them, because they're how you speak all the time.
on Jun 26, 2007
They treat Muslims who aren't citizens with fear and contempt.


A while ago I thought there was a news story about the French government trying to force Muslim girls from wearing their head scarf. When I asked the question I wasn't thinking in terms of citizens vs non-citizen. That makes it more understandable. I'm wondering if all get the same treatment or is it as here where it's OK for the media to bash Christianity, but everything else, especially Islam, is politically protected, even esteemed? In France, non-citizen Jews and Catholics can wear their repsective cap and Crucifix, right?

Bringing the discussion somewhat back to the topic (are you smiling Sean? ), There is a bit of fury over the more liberal Supreme Court Justices referencing European law in deciding US law. I'm wondering now if it was French law? Anyone know?

I don't like the French.
I don't because I don't like the socialist form government (which is what we are seeing here in the US) The French Revolution, unlike the American one, despised the old traditions and created completely new governing structures that totally transformed society...it wasn't self-rule in any sense of the word. The Framers in writing the US Constitition, knew that if it was to be preserved, the people were going to have to keep vigilant watch over the government which has a way of encroaching upon the rights of the states and of the little people.

This is happening everyday from both sides of the aisle and that's why I say we're becoming socialistic. Yuk!


on Jun 26, 2007
I don't like the socialist form government


Well then, you certainly won't like it when Jesus comes again and sets up his theocratic socialistic government, will ya?
on Jun 26, 2007
JYTHIER POSTS:

I can't see any (legal) reason to not allow any couple to get all the legal rights of marriage, but you're not going to call it that.


Think deeper about why the State exists and what the States' duty is under the Constitutional form of government in the first place. The State is a sphere of authority set up by the people to govern themselves according to the common good in support, protection and perpetuation of the whole.

The institution of Marriage and the family is the building block of society and civilizatons. Up until recent times, the State rightly and correctly bestowed benefits upon the institution of marriage and the family that by its very nature and design is a proven common social good. The family is numero uno in importance; an irreplacable social good. The State is wise beyond description to hold up consanguineous married relationships which lead to and create the best possible conditions to bring children into the world and their upbringing.

The State has no business whatsovever in redefining the experience of centuries upon centuries of irrefutable testimony of the value of one man/one woman in marriage.

The same can't be said for homosexual unions or "marriage". Homosex relationships develop from lack of moral restraint toward social norms(no one is forced to engage in sexual activity).

The State in determining laws has the duty to examine all their is to know about the subject at hand. The homosexual sector of the population suffer from abnormally high levels of mental and physical health problems, sexual diseases, alcoholism and drug use, higher suicide rates, domestic abuse, child abuse and molestation.

As I said before, by conferring the benefits of lawful, traditional marriage upon the flawed unnatural design of homosexuality, the State becomes its active promoter and workd against the common good. The State effectively becomes a "terror to good".
on Jun 26, 2007
Well then, you certainly won't like it when Jesus comes again and sets up his theocratic socialistic government, will ya?


Well, when Jesus comes again that's the Final Judgment on the last day of this valley of tears we call "world", I'm going to have to take what He gives me and so will you my friend.   Are you ready? We don't know the hour or the day when Jesus will come down from the heavens in full glory as Judge of our souls, or for that matter when our ticket to ride in life will be called in.

In the meantime, we've got work to do, right?
on Jun 26, 2007
Those are the issues of today, so we talk about them. We already lost to pornography, so why bring that up? So we talk about abortion, because we're not done fighting yet. Soon that will be over, too, and gay marriage will be allowed. Then we'll have new things to talk about that I'm sure none of us can even dream of. Nudity on cable, legalized prostitution and gambling everywhere, etc, are only the tip of the iceberg of sin that will be waylayed upon the population in the coming years. It's only going to get worse, and more things are going to be viewed as 'intolerant' to protest. The only thing that won't be tolerated is the protest against sin.
on Jun 26, 2007
Those are the issues of today, so we talk about them


Yes, and rightly so. These are very important issues that effect each one of us in some fashion or other and dialogue, sharing the word and education is so very important. Thank goodness for JU in this department. I, for one, would have never believed or understood how this would be possible!!!


We already lost to pornography, so why bring that up? So we talk about abortion, because we're not done fighting yet. Soon that will be over, too,


Don't despair...when you think of it, every age had its hardships and battles...it's burdens to life. It doesn't matter whether we win or lose, we just have to keep trying, we have to stay in the race...in the spiritual realm, we must stay faithful.

Speaking of abortion, I was wondering Sean, how much you know about the trafficking of baby parts? There's quite a cottage industry going on there. Planned Parenthood not only gets hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, and plenty from the abortion industry, but also more revenue by selling baby parts.


gay marriage will be allowed. ..... It's only going to get worse,


Concerning Homosex "marriage", I read this AM, that things might already be getting worse. It turns out speaking negatively about homosex "marriage" soon may be considered a hate crime so says George Will who has just written a story about this. Sean may have already heard about it.
on Jun 26, 2007
Speaking of abortion, I was wondering Sean, how much you know about the trafficking of baby parts? There's quite a cottage industry going on there. Planned Parenthood not only gets hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, and plenty from the abortion industry, but also more revenue by selling baby parts.


will you stop with the inflamatory BS like i asked you to do earlier? stop trying to make planned parenthood out to be some evil organization that greedily sucks up fetus's for their pleasure. what's next? gonna claim that they are feeding on the brains? cmon...they certainlly do allow scientists to study the fetus's and i'm sure certain parts of them. and i'm sure they get compensated. that is not "trafficking of baby parts"!!!! you make it sound like they are advertising their "crazy prices" during primetime.

Concerning Homosex "marriage",



ok lula,,,enough,,,enough with the "homosex" crap. either call them homosexuals or gay or something that actually exists instead of this garbage. this shines a vrey bright light on your true hate underneath your supposed innocent act.


and by the way, the emporer was right,,,that link (19 or so posts ago) was a parody. but you didn't even get that. just a lil test lil girl better luck next time  


on Jun 26, 2007
but what is more comical is how this conversation from the religious right ended up on the same old cliches...abortion, gay marriage and the french. ya'll need a new batttle cry, lol.


Little wit and less sense, in both the article itself and the response. Why not address an issue or two, rather than merely parrotting the same tired opinions. We all know you like it from the Left (what passes for it, here).

And?
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6