Wonder What Thomas Jefferson Really Meant
by Marilyn Mackenzie
Many people are under the mistaken notion that our founding documents use the phrase, "separation of church and state." They don't. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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."
Our Founding Fathers didn't want the federal government "establishing a religion." They also wanted to make sure the government did not, "prohibit the free exercise" of religion.
The words, "wall of separation of church and state" were used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, in Danbury, CT in 1802. Here is part of that letter:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Jefferson was responding to a letter he had received from the Danbury Baptists, who were being subjected (locally) to persecution for their beliefs. Jefferson wrote to assure them they the government would not be adopting or establishing a religion - as had been done in England - and that they would be free to worship as they wished.
As a Christian, when I read the First Amendment, I see these things:
1) The government will not establish a religion.
2) The governmetn will not prohibit me from exercising my religion freely - and that means that if I want to hold a Bible study in my office (even if I am a government official), I should be free to do so. I also cannot insist that anyone actually attend said Bible study.
People who are not Christian read these words differently. But you really have to take into consideration who the Founding Fathers were and the beliefs they held to determine the meaning.
Some claim that Jefferson had no faith. But the closing words of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists debunk that myth:
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
It's also interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson
1) attended Divine services at the Capitol throughout his presidency and had the Marine Band play at the services
2) during his administration, began to hold church services in the War Department and the Treasury Department, thus allowing worshippers on any given Sunday the choice to attend church at either the United States Capitol, the War Department, or the Treasury Department if they so desired
3) urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government'
Does that sound like a man with no faith or one who was wanting to enforce a strict "separation of church and state" that people today consider to be right and proper? I think not.
Items one through three above were taken from House Resolution 888, which is summarized as, "Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith."
HRES 888 also reminds us that:
1) the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;
2) Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;
3) throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
4) in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported `into the different ports of the States of the Union';
5) in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be `a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that `the United States in Congress assembled ... recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States';
6) in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin declared, `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? ... Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel';
To read the House Resolution 888 and discover facts you probably never knew about including the fact that in 1870, "the Federal government made Christmas (a recognition of the birth of Christ, an event described by the U.S. Supreme Court as `acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries') and Thanksgiving as official holidays;...and beginning in 1904 and continuing for the next half-century, the Federal government printed and distributed The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the use of Members of Congress because of the important teachings it contained" click here: HRES888
To send an email to your member of Congress about supporting HRES888, click here: Email your member of Congress
There are lots of facts to read and ponder over, and while you're doing that you might want to contemplate what Thomas Jefferson really meant in that letter to the Danbury Baptists. The religious heritage of our country exists and much of what we should already know is being lost as these facts are hidden from us. Our children and our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren deserve to know about that rich heritage. And yet, even as we sit here today, people are trying to re-write our country's history. In fact, they are - if you read some of the history books now being used in public schools.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 139
Here is the addresses of all representatives;
Write YOUR Representative
Blessings
in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;
It is a sad thing.
They established that Christmas which is a religious Holiday is a day to take off actually a whole two weeks is taken off for this Holiday season but all other religious beliefs and times are not. So they established one relgious holiday above all others. Actually the same goes for Easter which is why Spring Break is near or in Easter Week. This is establishing and acknowledging people who observe Sunday, Christmas and Easter and giving a holiday week or two for them but not others.
They have NO RESPECT for people who observe Saturday the day God set aside and sanctified and was never changed even at Christ Death they acknowledge Sunday a day most keep erronously believing it was changed at Christs death and resurrection when the ones who changed it were the Romans not anyone connected with Christ.
But the Sunday Blue Laws were established and Sunday is the Day respected sanctioned and set aside by our governmen as the authorized official day of worship for our nation in blatant disrespect and disregard of Sabbath 7th day observers and everything is now done on Saturday in total disrespect to them but in respect to all Sunday worshippers. So the government has long violated this first amendment. Furthermore they are making in roads into peoples basic belief concerning marriage, divorce, birth, child care.
any time a Christmas song, Easter song or other relgious item is done at schools which are goverment institutions it establish certain relgious beliefs above and over others in total disrespect and disregard of others who do Not believe the same way. Which is why some find it offensive to be wished "Merry Christmas" Or Happy Easter for example it is not their belief and they feel disrepected by this. People who want to voice their right to say such would be offended if in turn on one of their holidays they were wished. Happy Passover or Happy Atonement, Happy Rosh Hashana. Etc. So there is something to be said for taking some things out of schools especially any and all Relgious holidays and what goes with them. But taking God, the 10 commandments "In God we trust" out of our government offices and the like is wrong because we were founded on a Nation that believes in God.
In my other thread that touched on this topic, I mentioned that today an employer can request that you not wear a cross on your neck because it might offend. The courts back that up. But when Muslim men and women are asked to remove their headware for driver's licenses and photo IDs, the courts rule in favor of the Muslims...even though actually identifying them is almost impossible wth such cover.
The First Amendment gives each of us the right to freely exercise our faith. It doesn't give any person or the court the right to trample on that fright to freely exercise it.
"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 Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
My point is...that in order to protect your ability to practice your beliefs in the open, we have to protect every person's rights to worship as he pleases. Jefferson did just this when he wrote the letter you cite to Danbury Baptists. He wasn't agreeing with their tenet..he was protecting their right to their tenet. You do not need to claim a Christian foundation of our country in order to worship freely. On this point, you and I are in agreement. I am curious however, as to your motive to "prove" or insist that our fore fathers upheld a Christian doctrine.
A few years ago, in a church youth group, the kids - high school aged - were amazed to learn how much of our founding documents and the letters and quotations from those founding fathers - did express faith in God. This was something that they would never get from their history books.
Those same kids were confused about how the kings and queens in European countries came and went, and why they were sometimes killed. Again, they had no idea that religion had anything to do with those events.
In shielding our kids from religion, we're giving them only a part of the story, by stripping any mention of religion from the history books. They need to know the whole story, even when it isn't pretty.
I think that's why millions of Christians can go to church every week and participate in what they believe to be ritual cannibalism without getting arrested.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian. He didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he ever performed any miracles, or that he rose from the dead. That's why he wrote the Jefferson Bible, focusing only on the teachings of Jesus, which he described as "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
The federal government is not supposed to be sticking its nose into religion or the expresion of religion.
I lived in Texas when the big controversy came up about praying at football games. Texans had been praying at high school and college football games from the beginning. And football in Texas is a huge thing. People continue going to high school games even after their kids and grandkids graduate. Texans were outraged that the courts wanted to take away their prayer time at the games.
The one incident that really stood out for me, though, was a small town where 100% of the people attended either the protestant or catholic church. There were no agnostics or atheists or persons of other faiths in that town. Only Christians. Even they were told they could not pray at the games because 1) there might be a visitor who was offended and 2) someday there might be someone move into the town who did not follow the Christian faith.
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
There are a lot of things about Jefferson one can both like and hate. Questions on what he may or may not have believed are to some extent moot. Strong atheism was unheard of back in those times and a number of the fathers were agnostic. It took a long time for religious liberties to filter throughout the levels of the United States. At the time of the Constitution, there were still a number of individual states with state religions; these were dropped as the spirit of the Federal constitution was written into state constitutions, but John Adams could not get a religious freedom clause inserted into his own state constitution.
To keep OUR investigation accurate, we must rely upon fact..verifiable fact as opposed to speculation. In 1797 the United States ratified the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated by George Washington and signed by his successor, John Adams. The treaty declared that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." Congress unanimously approved the text of this treaty. This is verifiable. No speculation as to what the treaty "really" meant is possible.
I applaud your sincere desire to clarify your frustrations with the issues you mention...you feel you are being forced to surrender some of your religious freedoms and you have reacted in a protective manner...understood. But please consider that practicality must enter into the considerations involved in making religious expression a truly equal liberty. It would be impractical, for instance, to poll those in attendance at a football game in order to determine if any person there had objections to a prayer...where would this take us. Also, what is the possibility that someone in attendance might have objection, but be intimidated by being vastly out numbered?
I have had similar conversations such as this one many times over the past few years. I really do enjoy hearing different points of view. Thank you for allowing my input.
They believed in Deity, in God. And things continued going forward...
In 1954 a special Congressional Prayer Room was added to the Capitol with a kneeling bench, an altar, an open Bible, an inspiring stained-glass window with George Washington kneeling in prayer, the declaration of Psalm 16:1: `Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust,' and the phrase `This Nation Under God' displayed above the kneeling, prayerful Washington;
and in 1956, Congress by law made `In God We Trust' the National Motto, and added the phrase to American currency.
John Kennedy said, "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
Our government merely acknowledged that we have God-given rights - to pray, to worship, to express our religion freely. If there is one person among thousands who feels uncomfortable in a setting where a public prayer is offered, should that one person's discomfort be more important than the free expression of religion of the thousands? I think if you asked Thomas Jefferson, he would say no.
I wish America could go back to the 50's when we could openly pray and read our Bible whereever we choose. We could pray. The few who did not wish to follow had the right to not say the pledge, not bow their heads when we prayed. It dont take but one rotten apple to spoil the entire barrel. At least Jefferson , christian or not, stood up for America and what was best for the country. We know not his heart, just as we no not the heart of others. Religion is a personal thing. We can respect each other and let them have the right to worship or not. As a matter of fact to worship the lamp in the corner if that is what they choose to worship.
What most Christians don't seem to understand is that the Establishment Clause protects them and their rights to practice their beliefs however they see fit.
And the exact wording in the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v United States was "A party's religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification for his committing an overt act, made criminal by the law of the land."
And the exact wording in the Supreme Court's decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah was "Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability."
While the belief is not outlawed, and can't be outlawed, actions stemming from those beliefs may be. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm a Texan who has been to many football games, and I wasn't outraged that Supreme Court ruled that the pre-game prayer over the loudspeaker was unconstitutional. I was thrilled.
Many of the "historical truths" that this bill proposes is based on misinformation and falsehoods.
I'm still waiting for my health care.
The First Amendment grants me freedom of religion, but, to be an American, I'd better pick the right one.
I appreciate our government's desire to educate me with their bills on religion and their "American Religious History Week". But I have a feeling there's a bit more to it than just "educating" our "children and our grandchildren" about our "rich heritage", since they are keeping the scope of that education of our "rich heritage" limited to one religion.
I mean Jefferson also slept with his slaves. So that's cool too?
They used shit made out of Ivory all the time so Babar beware!
They used duels to solve problems. Roger! Get the silver pistols.
Lincoln spent his young adult life sleeping in the same small bed with another man and wrote very tender letters to him--I'd love to see him get elected today.
You show no tolerance for any who are not Christian as you try to establish your Christian only country. And I think you DO want it all. You would be the first to holler if every third coin and every other paper currency substituted "In Allah we Trust" for "In God we Trust" or the Torah was passed out in public schools or if Tom Cruise wanted to teach Scientology to your children. You are taking but you are not sharing....not when you proclaim that America is a Christian God fearing country. Are you so insecure that you must brand every thing you can see with a cross?
First, let's understand what kind men the Founding Fathers were. They were enlightened men, but they were enlightened men *for their time*. They were enlightened on how people should be goverened. Enlightened on how to build a stable, self-regulating government. Enlightened on how to write a living, breathing document that guides us in enabling 300 million people to coexist without collapsing.
We can't judge them by today's standards on all things. They were men of the late 1700's. That's why they had slaves (and some slept with them, yes). None of them had wives that voted, nor did they feel that women *should* vote. Christianity in all it's forms was practically the only religion around. Puritan morals was still strong and intolerance for all things non-Christian was strong. So even if you didn't believe in God, you knew how to talk the talk. If not for cover, then at least to communicate with those that did.
And, of course, religion is nothing if not steeped in tradition and ritual. It's not surprising that there was plenty of Christian tradition and ritual involved in the daily, even official, lives of those enlightened men.
But our nation *has* grown in size and diversity. Voting rights has given *all* citizens, not just white christian property owners, a voice in politics. Two centuries of immigration from the world over means a grand mix of races and religions. And lack of religion.
Today, tax dollars and government effort spent on Christian efforts, observances and ceremonies doesn't have the support of significant portion of the voting population. Times have changed.
Go read through some of the posts on atheism and atheists. I'll admit, a very few are vitriolic. But the majority of us are simply people who don't believe in a god. We don't hate Christians. We fully support their right to worship as they wish. What we don't want is someone saying we have to make it a part of our life. And my tax money spent on religious observances makes it a part of my life. And government using the culture of any religion as its blueprint of legislation is exactly what the enlightened Founding Fathers meant in the treaty.
Exactly, Fish!
Michael, my favorite cousin - an athiest - taught me that the word tolerance is not enough. In fact, it's a word that says, "I'm putting up with you. I'm tollerating you." In don't think that's enough, especially for a Christian. As a Christian, I'm supposed to love everyone, whether or not we believe in the same things. That means that I must hold each one in high regard, respect, honor and value them.
I would hope that shows. I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I don't work that way, although I am a lay speaker in my church and I do give sermons sometimes.
This is not about me at all. It's about honoring the men who formed our country and our government. And it's about making sure their story is shared, not buried.
And I was in no way denigrating the Founding Fathers. In fact, I'm in support of you for that. My point is that criticizing actions done in the mid-to-late 1700's by the standards of today is grossly unfair. They were good men; wise men.
And I agree with you on love vs. tolerance. Love is the ideal. But, sometimes, tolerance is all you can hope for. And if you don't even have tolerance, then you have injustice.
But I must contend with your claim that "anyone was asking for tax dollars for any religious observances". HRES888 is a litany of past instances where the gov't has spent considerable time, effort and money on religious efforts such as missionary work and printing bibles; Presidents who use official military bands for religious services; for further examples, just read HRES888. And the tone has had a definite "Can't we just go back to the good old days when the government acknowledged it was christian and did christian things".
And, yes, prayers at football games is gov't tax money in the form of property taxes that fund the schools. Money spent on 1 extra minute of lights being left on. 1 minute of the refs time spent on a moment of silence/meditation/prayer.
NOTE: AND I MEAN BIG NOTE: I have absolutely no problems with prayer at football games. To me the cost is minimal and the communal bonding that I feel from a simple moment of silence or prayer is well worth the time. But then, I grew up christian and that's a familiar, comfortable thing to me.
But, others don't have that history. To them a moment of prayer is a moment of exclusion, not inclusion. A time when everyone around them is engaging in an activity that has no meaning, yet their failure to participate could hurt their standing in the community. And if you think that being a non-christian wouldn't hurt a person's reputation in a community, then you've never been to rural Texas.
I don't understand your references about people trying to rewrite our history. By your comments, it sounds like you think people are trying to say that christianity didn't have an overwhelming influence on our country's beginnings.
It absolutely did and I don't think anyone is saying that it didn't. In fact, I quite often hear criticism about the fact that it *was* white christian men running the country. That's a common complaint in claims of sex/race/religious/sexual orientation descrimination.
No, Marilyn, I understand the influence christianity had on the country's beginnings. It was significant and permeated the attitudes of a nation. But that was a nation when those making the decisions were white, christian men. Today, all races, all cultures, all religions are part of the process.
To go back and read the writings of Thomas Paine would help enlighten all as to where those folks stood in regards to religion of that day ... the average christian then was more exoterically evangelical christian, the founding fathers were more esoterically deist's and theists but NOT evangelical christians.
IMnsHO.
Marilyn then says that "It's about honoring the men who formed our country and our government. And it's about making sure their story is shared, not buried." This is where some of us disagree with Marilyn...what this is all about. I believe, and I am certain that others share my belief, that the intent of Congressman Forbes is to further the Christian agenda with the focus being directed at infusing Christian, specifically Christian... tenet in to the fabric of our government and our governmental agencies and bodies. Forbes is the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, formed for the purpose of encouraging prayer through legislation, and opposing laws such as those banning prayer led by school officials. I won't elaborate about the opinions and agenda of Randy Forbes...I did want to point out that for Randy Forbes, the issue is not history, the issue is about more Christianity...not a celebration of a religious past...but about a more Christian future.
There are no threats to the liberties of the Christian blended into HRES888...only threats to the liberties of non Christians. As has been pointed out...religion and Christianity are not the same terms. And so, those of us who oppose HRES888 and those of us who differ in opinion with Marilyn, do so with the righteousness of those oppressed by the convictions of others...in this case, SOME conservative Christians.
It is my sincere belief that those who cling the tightest to overwhelming urge to broadcast their faith based beliefs are those who feel incomplete and insecure about those beliefs. Eric Hoffer said,"He (the true believer) cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources - out of his rejected self - but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever support he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength."
A true example of one with complete, self assured faith would be a person who is so confident with his beliefs that he finds it unnecessary to constantly seek the reinforcement of others as if he is trying to prove to himself that he is a real believer.
Our American history is not being buried nor is it being burned. Our history has been very well recorded and preserved. The books, the papers, the writings, transcripts of debates, personal letters, documents...it has all been preserved and is available for inspection by any person who is interested or seeks to learn about our history, our founding fathers or the struggles we have endured as this country grew and developed.
So my question stands for Marilyn...What is your true agenda?
You are absolutely correct, of course. The interest here is not about preserving the past. It is well preserved. The issue is about changing the country. The change is about bringing Christian prayer back into schools. I used to teach once but I doubt that anyone wants me to lead the children in prayer. My prayers are not proscribed from the Christian tradition.
Marilyn's true agenda is shove Christianity down the throats of all Americans. It is an un-American as most attempts to bring church and state together. The argument, of course, will be that the constitution did not specifically call for separation. In the end, this splitting of hairs is meant to further the agenda of Christianizing America.
My stance is that the fact the origin of our country is strongly steeped in religion and religious tradition doesn't mean that we should run the country as if christianity was the state religion. And ultimately HRES888 says just that.
The proposal sets aside a week for the recognition that religion has played an important in our country. I have no problem with that idea, in and of itself. I don't think that establishes an official Religion Of The State any more than February being designated Black History Month establishes african-american as the official Race Of The State. It's recognizing and spotlighting a significant influence on the country as many holidays and official observances do.
My problem is with article 2 of the resolution. (2) to recognize that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
This article is dangerously close to saying that christianity is the state religion. It's basically saying "Christianity is such a part of our government, our legal system and our culture that we can't separate the christian religion from the running of our country". And to clarify, the phrase "the religious foundations of faith on which America was built" is intended to mean christianity.
*This* I have problem with as do other non-christians. Recognizing that our nation has its roots in christianity is one thing. Saying that we should use christianity as a bases for our laws is another thing. It's against the spirit of the constitution and a direct contradiction of the Treaty of Tripoli.
1) The Puritans who came over searching for religious freedom were a highly intolerant group, running their original settlements as theocracies that would put the Sharia law of the strictest Muslim societies seem like a socialist nirvana. They maimed and killed many dissenters, including the Quakers, who often had their tongues cut out before being thrown out of the community. If these are the people you hold up as the founders of our nation, Marilyn, then you may as well worship sociopaths.
2) Most of the original colonies were purely founded for capitalistic reasons (i.e., Jamestown) - the pursuit of money and riches to be gained from the abundant resources of this land. They had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and often included members from a variety of religious beliefs, as well as people of no particular belief.
So, Marilyn - if you REALLY want to support the historical study of our early times in America, then we should actually propose a "Glorify Commerce" week, rather than anything to do with religion. And perhaps make sure that our history books actually reflect the violence and intolerance of the majority of original religious folks who came to our shores.
I find it rather insulting that others have decided they can proclaim to the world what my agenda is. I would never do that to or for anyone.
I know there will never be prayer in classrooms like when I was a kid, and that's fine with me. But it is not fine that kids who want to form prayer groups or Bible study groups are told that they cannot even pray together in the parking lots before school starts. I find it unbelievable that a kid is told that he cannot do an essay on Jesus when the topic is what or whom has been the biggest influence on his life. These things happen, and it isn't right.
No one ever tells an athiest that he/she can only be one in one building on one day of the week. But that is exactly what people want from Christians...or people of any faith. And that is not what our forefathers had in mind.
Whatever faith one has is woven within him/her and affects every part of one's life and day. It doesn't matter which belief system one chooses, that's how it works.
If there's to be tollerance or love or any kind of getting along, it has to be from both sides. And right not, that is definitely not the case.
Someone above said, "But I must contend with your claim that "anyone was asking for tax dollars for any religious observances". HRES888 is a litany of past instances where the gov't has spent considerable time, effort and money on religious efforts such as missionary work and printing bibles; Presidents who use official military bands for religious services; for further examples, just read HRES888. And the tone has had a definite "Can't we just go back to the good old days when the government acknowledged it was christian and did christian things".
I don't think any one of us thinks we're going to go back to the way things were. But we do need to acknowledge that things were like that. Frankly, I don't ever want to go back to the time when the states had state churches - some states clear into the mid-1800s. No, I don't want that. I don't want the federal government having any say into how any church or religion is run (except where they're protecting people's physical well being, I guess).
But I wholeheartedly support the idea of "American Religious History Week." And it should include the good, the bad, and the ugly - just like Black History does. We need to be able to mimic or copy what was good and worked (although I know we'll never have a Leave it to Beaver World again). And we need to know what was wrong and bad, so we don't make those same mistakes. But we should never ignore the fact that this country was founded on godly ideals and that the founders all talked of God-given rights.
Just because information is available doesn't mean people search it out.
And - and I know we've ahd this discussion before - all religions are not equally respected in this country anymore. Not when schools in California are emersing kids in Islamic faith as education, but they cannot mention Christianity.
I agree. This a First Amendment issue.
"Whatever faith one has is woven within him/her and affects every part of one's life and day."
Yes, but it shouldn't affect the laws one creates.
"...just read HRES888"
This is like saying that the bible is true because it says so, just read it. Just because this ridiculous bill says something doesn't mean it's checked it's facts.
"we need to know what was wrong and bad, so we don't make those same mistakes."
Again, I agree. It seems that almost every congressman needs a remedial history class.
"But we should never ignore the fact that this country was founded on godly ideals and that the founders all talked of God-given rights."
Please explain this "fact" to us. The founders mentioned God-given rights, but they didn't all mean the same God that you worship. A lot of them were Deists; they believed in "nature's god", sort of a inexplicit deity. Our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not found in the bible, or the koran, the bhagavad gita, the talmud, the veda, or any other holy book that I'm aware of. Those rights are enumerated in the United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Name me one "God-Given" right that humans have that hasn't been taken away by man at one time or another.
Even if we wanted a tax-funded, government-run National Week of something, this shady bill is hardly the way to get it.
I ask you and all other christians to understand that non-christian stances on such issues is not a War on Christianity or even a persecution. Disregarding extremists in on all sides (christian, atheist, muslim or whatever), I feel confident in saying that non-christians don't want to obliterate religions, including christianity. We don't want to keep people from worshipping as they wish. We don't want you to ignore your faith, ceremonies, rituals and lifestyles that are the products of your religious beliefs. We support "the pursuit of happiness", whatever the road that pursuit takes you.
What we *do* oppose is the insistence that because you want faith and religion to be a part of *your* life, that it must also be a part of ours. That being said…
Quote - "As I've already stated, my agenda is to see that the fact that our forefathers (most of them) believed in God and wrote the documents with that in mind. History is being re-written to exclude this. I've looked through many history books being used in public schools to see that's the case. I've spoken with public school teachers who way [sic] it's so as well."
My reply:
The christianity of the forefathers is not being deleted, it's being forgotten. I think the misperception is that the christianity of the forefathers is purposefully being written out as a conscious act of removing religion from our society. The opposite is true; for the growing segment of non-christians, the forefathers' religious beliefs are merely unimportant and so we don't bother mentioning it. Their wisdom wasn't in their religious beliefs, whether they were christian, deist or Zen Kwanzaa-Judaism. The wisdom lay in their understanding of the complex political, economic, social, military and diplomatic issues of creating a new nation. To many, their Christianity is as important to note as the powdered wigs or George Washington's wooden teeth.
Quote - "2) The governmetn will not prohibit me from exercising my religion freely - and that means that if I want to hold a Bible study in my office (even if I am a government official), I should be free to do so. I also cannot insist that anyone actually attend said Bible study."
Another quote - "No one ever tells an athiest that he/she can only be one in one building on one day of the week. But that is exactly what people want from Christians...or people of any faith. And that is not what our forefathers had in mind."
My reply:
No, we don't want that. Again, this is not a persecution - go to church all you want. The complaint is when you bring your church into the workplace, government offices and therefore the lives of those don't want it. For me, it's like making me listen to music I don't like.
I know the music is out there, I know a lot of people like it and more power to them. I'm glad there's an industry that connects the makers of the music and those who enjoy it. But it annoys me when it's broadcasted over loudspeakers or played when I'm put on hold. You step over the line when you mandate that I HAVE to listen to it. And I rebel when you want to legislate laws based on the songs.
Quote - "I find it rather insulting that others have decided they can proclaim to the world what my agenda is."
My reply:
I can support you on this, Marilyn. We *don't* know your personal agenda. And if you're truly only for establishing the Religious History Week, then I believe that. But if that's all you're supporting and you don't, in fact, want to legally force Christianity on non-christians, then you can't support HRES888 as long as it has resolution #2, at the very least. Even resolutions #1 and #3 should be reworded.
If what you tell us about your intentions is true, you must oppose HRES888 as it is currently written. Supporting it is a clear indication that you believe that Christianity must be included in our legislation and daily government dealings even it means imposing it on non-christians.
What has happened here, Marilyn, is that you have been unknowingly drafted into an agenda that *does* intend to impose christianity on the nation through legislation. I'm guessing HRES888 has been discussed in your church or with other faith-based groups. The emphasis in those discussions is probably that this is merely an innocent national observance bill and those antagonistic atheists are opposing it because, well, atheists hate religion, want to keep people from excersizing their faith. Meanwhile, the other resolutions in the bill are intended to establish a formal declaration that christianity is fundamentally necessary in the running of our country.
This is what non-christians oppose. This is what we reject.
Atheists may not be told they can be in a building only one day a week... but we *are* told that we can't be in some buildings on one day in the week. Blue laws establish that it is illegal for certain commerce to be conducted on Sunday. So, your claim is only partly true.
Your objections are irrelevant. If Christians feel that Christ and God are of one mind in all things pertaining to man, as they are told in the Book, they have every right (literally) to speak as if that were true. Introducing a "generic God" is to me nothing more than silly chatter, but I certainly am not going to object to you doing so, that is your opinion, and you get to voice it like anyone else.
Now...
Joe T. said, "No one ever stops anyone from praying at any time during the day."
Joe, as I've said before, this is not true everywhere. Perhaps it is true in your particular school. But, for instance, 6 girls in a high school in Texas were asked not to pray before lunch in the cafeteria, even though they prayed quietly together and were not disturbing anyone. Kids are asked all the time not to bring their Bibles to school, even though they're supposed to have a free time to read whatever books they want. Perhaps you should take a look at The American Center for Law and Justice web site to see how often they're having to go to court to fight for the rights of Christians.
Irrelevant as it may be, it is no more so than anyone else's ... and I did, and will, continue to so speak, because there just may be a few that would like to know a higher truth ... one that would have a single concept of God for all as unconditional love ... rather than the current "my God is better than yours" idea that is causing so many problems in this world.
This is where we totally disagree. It is very important. Whether one has chosen to believe in God or not to believe in God (and I'm talking about God the Creator, the God of Abraham and Moses – shared by Christians and Jews) that decision affects every part of one's life. Or it should, anyway.
Fish also said, "Again, this is not a persecution - go to church all you want. The complaint is when you bring your church into the workplace, government offices and therefore the lives of those don't want it."
But that's just it, Fish. My comment said that I cannot be expected to just believe and worship God at church one day of the week.
A five year old in a vacation Bible study clarified this for me about ten years ago. He said, "With Jesus in your life, he's mixed through and through. It's like having mayonnaise in your tuna. It has to be mixed in so it tastes good, and it can't be taken out again."
And so it is with those who worship God. We're not perfect, of course. But if we're striving for perfection, trying to grow in our faith, we do take seriously the fact that God is with us each and every minute of every day.
No one asks an atheist to stop being one at the work place. But people, somehow, think someone who believes in God, who loves God, can simply turn that off if he/she is not in a house of worship. We can't. It's part of who we are, what we think about everything.
The same is true of someone who doesn't believe in God. The mindset follows in all aspects of life.
I've been in work situations where employees make crude jokes about Christians. That's okay with company owners and managers. But let someone quote from the Bible and he/she is wrong.
Asking me not to quote from the Bible, asking me not to say, "Well bless your heart" or "God bless you" (and not just when someone has sneezed) is asking me to change who I am.
If every employee is free to post quotations in his/her office or cubicle – including some from the Dalai Lama – why would it be wrong for an employee to post Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me"???
Our forefathers guaranteed that we could have free expression of our faith. If our faith truly does define us, if we carry it with us each hour of every day, then how are we being allowed free expression if we cannot ever speak of our faith or if we cannot have a Bible on our bookshelf at work?
Most would not reject the idea or concept, even belief in, Jesus Christ even IF it were NOT for the "interpretations" associated with Him by the average Christian that limits Him to only "their" faith based dogma and creed. Even the Muslims accept Him as he really was, another Prophet, NOT God/Allah ... IMnsHO.
IF one still requires all that you seem to ask for, Bibles, Quotations on the walls, and specified prayer times set aside where-ever, then after all these thousands of years the results have not been more productive for mankind than they seem to have been ... maybe it is past time to seek a different method or concept in ones "search" for God ... ?!?
Just a suggestion ... the problem with religious faith is that too often it becomes an ego investment ... selfish at that all too often ... that being why it is so "defended" as it is. True Spiritual experience is transcendent to ego views.
IMnsHO.
"No one asks an atheist to stop being one at the work place."
Marilyn, you might be surprised what atheists are and are not allowed to do. By law. For example, Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas Constitution:And Article 9, Section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution:Many other state constitutions have similar restrictions against atheists, agnostics, and non-theists.
I don't think making crude jokes about Christians or anybody else is appropriate in the workplace, and where I work, people who engaged in that sort of behavior could easily find themselves out of a job. I've never heard anybody make any comments like that, and by the same token, I've seen anybody going around saying "God bless you" or other things that people might find offensive. I wouldn't know what religions (if any) my co-workers practice, and I think that's for the best.
Which brings us to the arrested prayers. There is another side to the story: http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/folger.html
"Folger left out an important detail: According to a June 24 Elmira Star-Gazette article on the incident, the group did their silent praying in front of the stage, thus disrupting the event. Folger also failed to mention, as the Star-Gazette detailed, that the protesters were quickly released and returned to the event, though not in the park."
Apparently, during the event the silent prayers stood in front of the stage to hold their vigil. Not quite the innocent, "oh, we were only silently praying in public". What would your reaction be if a group of transvestites came to your church picnic (held in a public park) and started doing an Abba revue? Not too different, I expect.
And, please, let's not start a litany of oppressions and attacks on christians. There are just as many documented cases of christians oppressing and attacking non-christians. We both know there are extremists or even ordinary people with a particular bone to pick on all sides. I still stand by my statement that mainstream atheists don't persecute christians nor do they want a forced obliteration of religion.
I recently had an epiphany. Or rather, I remember something I'd been taught long ago and had since forgetten. I was raised christian and was taught that our FFs successfully created this nation *because they were christian*. That their christian beliefs and observances gave them the tools -- specifically, inspiration from God -- to succeed that they otherwise would not have had.
Religion is not a substitute for knowledge. A belief in Jesus' divinity doesn't mean you suddenly know diplomacy. Getting baptized doesn't bestow knowledge of how to construct a stable, three-branch government of representation. Thomas Jefferson didn't realize that a 2/3's majority was just the right ratio one should require to override a veto because he sang hymns in church.
Religion is a part of who you are and affects how you view the world... as do many things. Do you prefer to work outdoors or in an office? Was your father in the military? Have you ever been convicted of a crime? These things are just as pervasive in how you view the world and interact with others. But, religion only gives you answers for one thing: How you should live your own, peronal life.
Our FFs didn't succeed *because* they were christian. They succeeded because they were enlightened men with the wisdom of experience. Their christianity is not a significant enough factor *in their success* to warrant making it a significant point of the story. I don't say we remove or even hide their christianity; those facts -- and let's make sure we use true facts, not architypal stories -- should be kept in the books. But, let's give it the attention it deserves. And, today, more and more people feel the attention it deserves is a mention, not a proclamation that without christianity, this nation would never have successfully broken from Britain.
You *can* be christian at work, if by being christian you mean believe in Jesus, accept him as your savior and to those around you as Jesus would treat them. I can't think of a single instance where a workplace, or even government office, says you can't think and feel as you want. If God truly is the mayonnaise in your tuna, then what is it that you have to do to be a christian that violates work policy?
But, your argument does have some merit. I support people being allowed to have a bible on their bookshelf, a cross or picture of Jesus on their desktop. Such displays of your beliefs are appropriate and rules that disallow them are unfair. But what's happening is religion, specifically christianity, is experiencing a trimming of it's influence.
As I said before to Teresa, there are plenty of examples on all sides of oppression and attack. A person's religious standing has long and often been a deciding factor in a person's success in a community, especially in rural areas. Look at the current republican primary: Huckabee garners a lot of support *because* of his history as a baptist minister... and Romney suffered *because* of his history as a mormon.
There is now a significant segment of our population that don't pass the litmus test of christianity. And that means a significant segment of our government that represent them. As a white male of European descent (Hmmm, I can't see myself typing *that* phrase very often. I'll shorten it to WMED), I've seen the same thing happen to my demographic. Laws on sex descrimination, laws on sexual harrassment, laws on racial descrimination, hate crimes laws. Since the civil rights movement of the sixties, the ability for WMEDs to limit the success of others solely on the the basis that they're *not* WMEDs has been severely limited.
Are there injustices in these limitations? Sometimes. But it is a transition process and an equilibrium between guaranteeing rights and and improper limitations has not yet been reached. Is is a persecution? No. It is a legitimate balancing of power and influence.
Truly though, my otherwise is only a very small (but I think important) point ... sort of a "balance" between Marilyn's view and your own, that of my own, I would like to think.
It should already be obvious that I disagree with both Marilyn and Teresa based upon their interpretations of the "meanings" of their religious views ... no problem, that is me versus millions ...
The "balance" that I speak of, is between those "religious" views so based upon literal (more "objective") "meanings" and considerations (even though they "speak" of the subjectivity of s/Spirit) ... and the views of a secularist or more specifically an agnostic or atheist that may be even "more" strictly "objective" in denial of s/Spiritual involvement in the matters of man.
It is my own strong spiritual belief (absolutely NON-religious) that our FFs were most surely (by all indications to me) Spiritually led ,with great "wisdom" that surpasses "mere" knowledge in what it took to give us all of the sublime basics, the "essence" of what it would take to make our government work the best under the circumstances involved ... that some people now-a-days try to "tamper" with our constitution for selfish advantage in no way takes anything away from the "intentions" of the exercise of "that" wisdom of the FFs.
My "point" then being again, as I have attempted to say earlier, ... there IS a God of Truth and UNconditional Love that permeates our Universe in Spirit ... what I call a "generic" nuetrallity that arranges eternal outcomes Karmically based upon the Golden Rule and the law of cause and effect, what goes around comes around ... and helps those who help themselves to "learn" such truths ... such truths granting the successful often great "wisdom" ... of which our FFs were good examples of ... as was the "man" Jesus and so many "others", known, and even far more "unknown," throughout our history ... much of our historical record has been written in error and thus NOT at all as "factual" as so many would "prefer" to believe ...
In other words, a better balance between the considered obvious of objectivity AND the INtuitive subjectivity of spiritual potential, is very much needed by all of us ... IMnsHO.
Yours is a balanced view. I have a problem with those Christians who claim persecution. Go to Iraq where Christians are persecuted every day. Here in America, Christianity thrives. Just because a few middle school students were asked to pray at another time than during their lunch period does not constitute discrimination. Unfortunately, some people play the victim card all too much and Christians are not immune from this American sickness.
Just possibly "justifiably" so ... especially in light of the organizing ability of the "institutionally" connected Christians that promote and actively defend, often "in your face" confrontationally, those "beliefs" which so many "others" have valid reasons to disagree with ... especially so in considering the "threat" to society of those "millions" so actively "pushing" their views upon the rest of us ...
Then of course the "documentation" of the "poor Christians" being "picked on" is also just a big part of that "organized campaign" that is "supposed" to show their "unfair persecution" ... something they also value very highly as "prophetic proof" that they are doing the "right things" ... give us a break yet.
"rather than the current "my God is better than yours" idea"
Sir, that is PRECILELY what you have here proposed; That YOUR idea of God is better. But what sets you apart from general Christian practice, is that you literally state that concepts not like your own are inferior and "cause trouble". You literally do the very thing you are accusing others of. I rarely see Christians actually draw such a prideful distinction, when expressing their Faith in His nature as revealed in that Book.