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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Jun 26, 2007
I brought John Jay into it, but since he's historical fact it's hard to argue against. I don't think he gets brought up very much in this argument, either, so when it devolved into the issues it certainly can't be blamed on the religious right. Please let me know if you did, in fact, respond to it, but I did not see any quote to lead me to that conclusion.
on Jun 26, 2007
To: lulapilgrim

In France, non-citizen Jews and Catholics can wear their repsective cap and Crucifix, right?


As I keep telling you, no one in France, citizen or not, may express either by word or sign, a religious sensibility in any aspect of the French Public Sphere. The girl wasn't coerced (and if she was, more power to the French authorities for doing so) she was simply required to obey the law, like everyone else.

The passions of religion are too inflammatory to be given expression within the State and the severest divorce ought to be maintained between them. But issues like religious symbols within court houses are cosmetic, not substantial. Questions of that sort should be dealt with at the level of individual States. Much more important is the question of the influence of lobbyists and its effects on government policy generally; and the degree to which the religious convictions of an individual should be allowed to dictate the policies of the Nation.

The policies of a Nation aren't immune to the influence of the convictions of the men and women who make up its government. In order to encourage policy making on the basis of fact, rather than prejudice, and in order to encourage debate and consensus-building (which is how a democratic Republic ought to function if it's to remain consistent with the principles on which it was founded) than the only proper ethical content of the State's actions is a generalized humanism which places law above opinion, due diligence and legitimate procedure above personal preference and nepotism; and the concept of citizenship before any consideration of personal constitution or character.

Take homosexuals, as an example. If a homosexual is a citizen then he or she is guaranteed by the Constitution the same rights as heterosexual citizens, simply because the homosexual is a citizen. Questions of who they fuck are irrelevant. All citizens have the same rights, in virtue of being citizens. Those who deny those rights are working against the Constitution. If citizenship is not defined by sexual acts and sexual preferences but by birth within geographic boundaries or by legal naturalization, then the question of who you have sex with has no bearing on your rights as a citizen. And that's really all that need be said.

A generalized ethical humanism of this sort excludes considerations of a religious character by definition, and it's that complete exclusion of the religious impulse from public matters that constitutes the secular in 'Secular State'. There's nothing remotely like such exclusion of religion from the public affairs of America, so that any suggestion that America is in any way a secular society is complete nonsense.

on Jun 27, 2007

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 [/quote]

I have no idea what you are saying here. I have a filter on my computer that doesn't allow much of anything on the internet...so I haven't seen or read whatever you are talking about. I tried to take that test from Moderateman's site on "what theologian are you?" and I couldn't open that as well.


LULA POSTS: quote]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.


SC POSTS: 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.



So now I've learned that asking whether or not you are aware of the abortuaries selling baby parts is inflammatory BS...oh well, soon---the way we are going, it'll be hate speech. Go figure!

Planned Parenthood is evil. But this is the age when evil is called good and good is called evil. There is no black and white, everything is grey.



ok lula,,,enough,,,enough with the "homosex" crap. either call them homosexuals or gay or something that actually exists instead of this garbage.


Sean, I sense a little "control freak" tendency in you.

Knock. Knock. You don't get to control what I write. If you don't want me to respond to your blog, say so, and I'll oblige.

on Jun 27, 2007
Planned Parenthood is evil. But this is the age when evil is called good and good is called evil. There is no black and white, everything is grey.


boy, do I agree here Lula. You nailed it.



on Jun 27, 2007
Knock. Knock. You don't get to control what I write. If you don't want me to respond to your blog, say so, and I'll oblige.


you are more than welcome to respond. but you will play by my rules on my blog, just like every other JU'er. just stop using that term "homosex" which is about as ignorant as it gets.

this isn't about me as you are trying to spin it into. it is about you preaching filth and crying foul when you are called on it.

Planned Parenthood is evil.


ok, now we know how you feel, and that what i say is true. and what you are saying is, in a sense, hate speech. you try to mask it all up, but it's still obvious. twisting the terminologies like "homosex" (funny, you manage to write everything else out, but apparantly "homosexual" is too much of a literary burden). then you twist scientific research into "trafficking of baby parts."

it's a shame how full of hate you are and don't even realize it.
on Jun 27, 2007
I see nothing wrong with hating sin. It's when you start hating the sinners that you have to take a step back. Everyone's a sinner, so you hate everybody. Time to reevaluate. Remember, you are to love everyone and hate sin, not hate everybody who sins.

Hating behaviours have long been the right of all. Making it illegal to express that hatred in words would be damaging in the long run. After all, if it's a similar penalty to express hate in words as in actions, how much easier to let your actions speak for you.
on Jun 27, 2007
I see nothing wrong with hating sin


hate is hate, regardless of where it's directed.

Making it illegal



don't go there. i am not talking about anything to do with making anything illegal here. i simply am asking lula to have some decency and if she wishes to discuss things, leave the b.s. at the door. the same as when i ask the col to back off some of his language or anyone else who just wants to use inflammatory terms that they simply made up to be inflammatory.

it's an old routine in debate...use infammatory language...then the opponent either has to put up with it, and the unfair use of it...or if they call the other on the language or whatever is being done, the inflamer gets to charge "politically correct" and crap like that....as if
on Jun 27, 2007
twisting the terminologies like "homosex" (funny, you manage to write everything else out, but apparantly "homosexual" is too much of a literary burden).


Sean, if you re-check my posts, you'll see that I consistently phrase my wording to best describe or make my point.

"Homosexual" is a person, a noun. I do not and can not measure or judge the person's heart or soul. That's God's job.

"Homosexuality" as is "homosex" is an unnatural and disordered sexual behavior and that is fair territory to measure and judge. Our laws are based upon measuring or judging behavior or actions.

I will tell a person when I think they are doing something harmful; that's what I call love. I think homosexuality or homosex is harmful behavior to the participants themselves, their families and to society that condones it. I think encouraging and condoning, or affirming (by law) homosexuality is hateful becasue it's a deathstyle, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

We've been discussing ---laws and the Constitution---and some of those laws condone, affirm and encourage the practice of homosexuality.


it's a shame how full of hate you are and don't even realize it.


Why do you attack me and the language I use instead of rebutting my position on the issue that is being discussed? Why in debates do liberals always end up attacking the messenger instead of the message? C'mon Sean, justify sodomitical "marriage", if you can.

on Jun 27, 2007
I try to avoid inflammatory terms for that very reason. It just takes the focus off the real topic and onto whether the term is acceptable. Good point Sean.
on Jun 27, 2007
scientific research into "trafficking of baby parts."


planned parenthood out to be some evil organization that greedily sucks up fetus's for their pleasure. ....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.




Sean, so you're a "the end justifies the means" kind of man, huh?




on Jun 27, 2007
C'mon Sean, justify sodomitical "marriage", if you can.


a loving relationship between 2 people? sure. i can justify it in the fact that i've seen it over and over. i absolutely disagree with your uninformed assertions that 2 same sex individuals engaging in any kind of physical intimacy is somehow harmful. and the fact that you think that the relationship is solely based on some pavlovian desire to "get off" tells me how little you know. you somehow think homosexuals are "forced" into it or something, as you have stated.

Sean, so you're a "the end justifies the means" kind of man, huh?


no, i'm the kind of man that doesn't allow you to set up an unwinnable game by twisting terminology and meanings. if they don't do anything with the remains of the fetus, you'd accuse them of tretchery for that. if they do something productive with it, you twist it into "trafficking for baby parts."

being against abortion doesn't make it necessary to try to fix the argument in advance. if your position is legit, you should be able to argue it on legit grounds, not the crap you spew and parrot.



on Jun 27, 2007
"you make it sound like they are advertising their "crazy prices" during primetime."

I was going to post something regarding this, but it was more disturbing than funny.
on Jun 27, 2007
"you make it sound like they are advertising their "crazy prices" during primetime."

I was going to post something regarding this, but it was more disturbing than funny.


yes it is. it's like if someone started referring to the sacrament of holy communion as an exercize in canibalism... what would be the purpose of such a statement except to drive hate and prejudice?
on Jun 27, 2007
LULA POSTS:
C'mon Sean, justify sodomitical "marriage", if you can.


SEAN POSTS:
a loving relationship between 2 people? sure. i can justify it in the fact that i've seen it over and over.


You're saying that because you've seen loving relationships between 2 people over and over justifies the government redefining the 2,000 year old instititution of lawful traditional marriage.

That's weak, feel good, warm and fuzzy rhetoric. You can't justify sodimitical marriage on personal pleasure.

The State has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage becasue it serves an irreplacable common good to the furtherance of civilization.

If marriage rights and benefits are extended simply to facilitate the mutual affection between two same-gender people, there's no real benefit to society. The State's not in the business of making people feel good and subsidizing personal happiness.

And then logic forces another point.

If, as you say, loving affection are the qualifiers, then there is no logical line to draw before we slip slide into polygamy, incest, or a man who loves his dog for that matter. No right minded society can permit these things, but I guess in your grey world, it would.
on Jun 27, 2007
SEAN POSTS:
if they don't do anything with the remains of the fetus, you'd accuse them of tretchery for that. if they do something productive with it,


What body parts the abortuary isn't able to sell, either gets ground in a garbage disposer or placed in plastic bags and put in a dumpster and then taken to the nearest dump or landfill.

if they don't do anything with the remains of the fetus, ....if they do something productive with it,


Sean, "for what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" St. Matthew 16:26
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6