What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion..........................

[Flash The Cash]

What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion and its relationship to the U. S. Government, at the time the Constitution and First Amendment were made? Also, what rules and principles, if any, should be used to ascertain the meaning of the words in the Constitution?

[JohnM]

What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion and its relationship to the U. S. Government, at the time the Constitution and First Amendment were made?


By U.S. Government, do you mean the federal government, or are you including state governments?

[nate895]

They thought that the Federal Government shouldn't be influenced play a role in religion and visa versa. As for the states, they left that to the states themselves, as evidenced by the fact most states funded churches up until the Civil War era.

[Flash The Cash]

By U.S. Government, do you mean the federal government, or are you including state governments?

I mean only the federal government.

[Flash The Cash]

...most states funded churches up until the Civil War era.

No they didn't.

[pcosmar]

They prohibited any State established religion, or prohibition of religion.
Most people were of one faith or another, and it was considered the basis of the general morality.
They were prohibited from establishing One religion over others.
In other words, it is none of their business.

[Flash The Cash]

They prohibited any State established religion

What did they mean by the word "religion?" Did Congress making a law forcing the people to contribute to the financial support of two Chaplains to Congress establish religion?

[IHaveaDream]

Protestant religion and biblical teachings were central to the role of our intital federal government. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, that tradition still exists. To deny this is absurd. There is overwhelming evidence of this fact.

The Ten Commandments, even today, remain on display in Congress. Our federal government requires it's servants to swear an oath of loyaly on a Holy Bible. Christmas, the birthdate of Jesus Christ, is the only religious event that is formally recognized with a federal holiday.

There is an active effort underway to reform government at the federal level. The goal is to completely replace Judeo-Christian influences with a purely secular perspective. Many steps have already been taken to achieve this. But it cannot succeed without destroying our nation as we know it.

The Constitution was designed to force a conflict if either the Church or the State threatened to prevail exclusively. That is why it is regarded with such envy around the world. Theocracies and dictatorships alike are exposed for what they are by the profound precepts of the United States Constitution.

Ron Paul is a staunch defender of the Constitution because he realizes how truly unique it really is. Every generation since our founding has defended it at all costs. The fate of the Constitution is now ours to decide.

[Flash The Cash]

Protestant religion and biblical teachings were central to the role of our intital federal government.

No they weren't. The Constitution was central.

[Flash The Cash]

The Ten Commandments, even today, remain on display in Congress.

So what?


Our federal government requires it's servants to swear an oath of loyaly on a Holy Bible.

No it doesn't.


Christmas, the birthdate of Jesus Christ, is the only religious event that is formally recognized with a federal holiday.

That statement is false.

[pcosmar]

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.

What is your point?

[Flash The Cash]

There is an active effort underway to reform government at the federal level. The goal is to completely replace Judeo-Christian influences with a purely secular perspective. Many steps have already been taken to achieve this. But it cannot succeed without destroying our nation as we know it.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that was done way back in the late 1780's.

[Flash The Cash]

The Constitution was designed to force a conflict if either the Church or the State threatened to prevail exclusively. That is why it is regarded with such envy around the world. Theocracies and dictatorships alike are exposed for what they are by the profound precepts of the United States Constitution.

I don't know about all of that, but I do know that religion was excluded from the cognizance of the U. S. Government.


Ron Paul is a staunch defender of the Constitution

What rules and principles does Ron Paul employ to interpret the Constitution?

[Flash The Cash]

What is your point?

You talking to me?

[IHaveaDream]

No they weren't. The Constitution was central.

The Constitution was written by men who were guided by personal convictions. Most of those men were followers of Protestant religions and their subsequent writings and statements attest to this. Even their formation of goverment structure and proceedings attest to this.

If you wish to make a case to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you.

Good luck with that.

[pcosmar]

You talking to me?

Its your thread.
You asked the question.
The question is answered by the Constitution.
Congress shall write NO LAW.

[Flash The Cash]

The Constitution was written by men who were guided by personal convictions.

One of those personal convictions was that religion should be excluded from government authority. That's why the Constitution grants the government no power over religion.

[Flash The Cash]

Most of those men were followers of Protestant religions

That why they separated religion from government, dude.

[IHaveaDream]

What rules and principles does Ron Paul employ to interpret the Constitution?

You're obviously cruising for a debate, but your comments reveal a poor understanding of history and an indignant mindset. If you wish to have this discussion, at least do us the courtesy of exploring the facts and opening your mind to the possibility of being wrong about your conclusions.

[pcosmar]

Can you show any law that "Establishes or Prohibits" any religion?
I don't know of any.

[Flash The Cash]

Its your thread.
You asked the question.
The question is answered by the Constitution.
Congress shall write NO LAW.

No authority whatsoever over religion was delegated to the federal government. The First Amendment's religion clauses were superfluous, redundant and unnecessary, except to prevent misconstruction of the powers granted. Unfortunately, the First U. S. Congress did a poor job of that.

[Flash The Cash]

Can you show any law that "Establishes or Prohibits" any religion?
I don't know of any.

What exactly do you mean by the word "religion?" It is one of the most ambiguous words in the English language.

[pcosmar]

Well I consider atheism to be a religion, as is humanism.
It can not be established or prohibited by law.

[Flash The Cash]

Well I consider atheism to be a religion, as is humanism.
It can not be established or prohibited by law.

That's nice. Now, answer the question. What do you mean by the word "religion?"

[Mesogen]

Well I consider atheism to be a religion, as is humanism.
It can not be established or prohibited by law.

Well, then you've got a conundrum.

If the govt can establish no religion and you see no religion as a religion, then there's no way out.

[pcosmar]

Well, then you've got a conundrum.

If the govt can establish no religion and you see no religion as a religion, then there's no way out.

No conundrum. There is NO STATE Sponsored or established religion.
There is NO STATE prohibited religion.


A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,

Show me the LAW.
I know of none.

[Mesogen]

No conundrum. There is NO STATE Sponsored or established religion.
There is NO STATE prohibited religion.

It's still a Catch-22. If a state cannot sponsor any religion, then, to you, it's sponsoring "noreligion," which you say is a religion itself, therefore it is sponsoring a religion.

By calling "no religion" a religion, you create a Catch-22.

1. "No religion" is a religion
2. The state can only sponsor "no religion"
3. The state has sponsored the religion called "no religion"

[pcosmar]

It's still a Catch-22. If a state cannot sponsor any religion, then, to you, it's sponsoring "noreligion," which you say is a religion itself, therefore it is sponsoring a religion.

By calling "no religion" a religion, you create a Catch-22.

1. "No religion" is a religion
2. The state can only sponsor "no religion"
3. The state has sponsored the religion called "no religion"

I did not say 1. "No religion" is a religion.
I said atheism IS a religion. The belief that there is NO GOD is a belief.

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
There are many beliefs the the United States .
Many and varied Christian faiths.
The Jewish Faith.
Buddist ,Hindu, and Muslim Faiths.
I have even known Druids and Sun worshipers.
Which is the Offical State religion, and which is prohibited.

Show me the LAW.

[Flash The Cash]

No conundrum. There is NO STATE Sponsored or established religion.
There is NO STATE prohibited religion.

Define religion.

[Theocrat]

What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion and its relationship to the U. S. Government, at the time the Constitution and First Amendment were made?

Click here (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63) for the answer to that question.


Also, what rules and principles, if any, should be used to ascertain the meaning of the words in the Constitution?

This link (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html) is much more exhaustive than the previous link, so it may take you some time to find what you're looking for. In any case, I hope this helps!

[pcosmar]

Define religion.

Asked and answered.


A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,

[Flash The Cash]

Click here (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63) for the answer to that question.



This link (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html) is much more exhaustive than the previous link, so it may take you some time to find what you're looking for. In any case, I hope this helps!

No thanks, dude. I don't have time for a wild goose chase right now. I will follow the link when I have some idle time. In the interim I will assume you either don't know what the will of the lawmakers was or are unable to state it concisely.

[Flash The Cash]

Asked and answered.

Have you thought through all of the effects and consequences of defining the word "religion" in the First Amendment to mean "a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people?" I see absurdities that would result from your definition.

[pcosmar]

Have you thought through all of the effects and consequences of defining the word "religion" in the First Amendment to mean "a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people?" I see absurdities that would result from your definition.

I see absurdities with your posts.
In fact looking through ALL your posts, it seems that your whole point here is to argue a nonexistant point.
That is truly Absurd.

As you seem to be the very definition of TROLL, I am done with this discussion.

[Flash The Cash]

I see absurdities with your posts.
In fact looking through ALL your posts, it seems that your whole point here is to argue a nonexistant point.
That is truly Absurd.

As you seem to be the very definition of TROLL, I am done with this discussion.

I read you to say you haven't thought through all of the effects and consequences of defining the word "religion" in the First Amendment to mean "a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people."

[Mesogen]

I did not say 1. "No religion" is a religion.
I said atheism IS a religion. The belief that there is NO GOD is a belief.
Ok, where/when has the government enforced a belief that there is no god?



There are many beliefs the the United States .
Many and varied Christian faiths.
The Jewish Faith.
Buddist ,Hindu, and Muslim Faiths.
I have even known Druids and Sun worshipers.
Which is the Offical State religion, and which is prohibited.

Show me the LAW.
Show you what law?

[Mesogen]

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,

No, this is the definition of "culture."

Religion involves worhsipping something or at least acknowledging a diety or dieties.

[pcosmar]

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

It may be a spiritual thing or not. By definition.
The question was.
What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion.[/QUOTE

[QUOTE]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.

This is a point less thread.
The question was asked and answered.

There is NO established State Religion, nor is any prohibited.
There is NO LAW.

This is argueing over nothing.
If you think some law has been written, SHOW me the law.

[Mesogen]

There is NO established State Religion, nor is any prohibited.
There is NO LAW.

This is argueing over nothing.
If you think some law has been written, SHOW me the law.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you to say that atheism was the enforced state religion simply because a lack of a state religion is (should be) enforced.


Well I consider atheism to be a religion, as is humanism.
It can not be established or prohibited by law.

I guess all you said was that atheism is a religion.

I have to keep reminding myself that most people define atheism as a faith that there is no god as opposed to a simple lack of faith, which is what it really means.

Faith that there is no god should be more accurately called antitheism or contratheism.

[Flash The Cash]

No, this is the definition of "culture."

Religion involves worhsipping something or at least acknowledging a diety or dieties.

Is that what you believe the word "religion" in the First Amendment means?

[Flash The Cash]

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

It may be a spiritual thing or not. By definition.

Which one, if any, of those meanings did the lawmakers assign to the word "religion" in the First Amendment?



What exactly was the will of lawmakers, as regards religion.

No government power over religion.

[pcosmar]

?

What is Your Point ?

[Flash The Cash]

?

What is Your Point ?


The word "religion" had more than one meaning in late 1780's. How do we resolve ambiguity in a word used in the Constitution?

[CaveDog]

Like a lot of the principles this country was founded on, the prohibition on government involvement in religion had a lot to do with practices in Europe that the colonists wanted to distance themselves from. Official government religions were common in Europe which resulted in oppression of non-government sanctioned religions. With all the protestant sects here at the time there were fears that government might adopt one official religious denomination and oppress the others. The solution was to simply add a prohibition on the federal government involving itself with religion at all. They also added that there could be no religious test to hold office which would require a particular set of beliefs to serve in office, although such religious tests did exist in some states at the time in order to hold state office.

Some people take Jefferson's comments about a "wall of separation" between church and state to mean no religion should be involved in public life at all and point to that statement as proof that seperation of church and state was meant to be absolute. Seeing that Jefferson attended Church regularly as president and issued his own edition of the bible, it's doubtful he meant to declare any sort of war on religion.

On the other hand, some view the presence of Christian tradition in the government as evidence that the founders meant to create a "Christian nation" in the sense of some sort of theocracy. The truth is somewhere in between.

Though they didn't want government playing favorites, the framers believed that in order for a people to govern themselves they needed a moral framework to support that. As Edmund Burke pointed out, a people who lack restraint from within require external restraint. Otherwise, if people can't control themselves then more laws and law enforcement becomes neccissary to control them, which by it's nature has a chilling effect on liberty. The founders believed that Christianity was the key to promoting personal restraint and responsibility, so in that sense they encouraged it as a neccissary part of a free society.

In a nutshell, they created government as a mere mechanism that a moral people could use in a moral fashion. They expected virtue to flow upward from the people to the government as opposed to government having to impose morality on the people.

[Flash The Cash]

Like a lot of the principles this country was founded on, the prohibition on government involvement in religion had a lot to do with practices in Europe that the colonists wanted to distance themselves from. Official government religions were common in Europe which resulted in oppression of non-government sanctioned religions. With all the protestant sects here at the time there were fears that government might adopt one official religious denomination and oppress the others. The solution was to simply add a prohibition on the federal government involving itself with religion at all. They also added that there could be no religious test to hold office which would require a particular set of beliefs to serve in office, although such religious tests did exist in some states at the time in order to hold state office.

Some people take Jefferson's comments about a "wall of separation" between church and state to mean no religion should be involved in public life at all and point to that statement as proof that seperation of church and state was meant to be absolute. Seeing that Jefferson attended Church regularly as president and issued his own edition of the bible, it's doubtful he meant to declare any sort of war on religion.

On the other hand, some view the presence of Christian tradition in the government as evidence that the founders meant to create a "Christian nation" in the sense of some sort of theocracy. The truth is somewhere in between.

Though they didn't want government playing favorites, the framers believed that in order for a people to govern themselves they needed a moral framework to support that. As Edmund Burke pointed out, a people who lack restraint from within require external restraint. Otherwise, if people can't control themselves then more laws and law enforcement becomes neccissary to control them, which by it's nature has a chilling effect on liberty. The founders believed that Christianity was the key to promoting personal restraint and responsibility, so in that sense they encouraged it as a neccissary part of a free society.

In a nutshell, they created government as a mere mechanism that a moral people could use in a moral fashion. They expected virtue to flow upward from the people to the government as opposed to government having to impose morality on the people.

Did the lawmakers intend to give Congress the power make a law permitting tax proceeds to support Chaplains to Congress?

[heath.whiteaker]

troll alert

[pcosmar]

troll alert

I have to agree.
I tried to engage him in intelligent discussion, but he seems to have no interest in that. I really don't know what his motivation is as he just keeps babbling incoherently.

[Flash The Cash]

Like a lot of the principles this country was founded on, the prohibition on government involvement in religion had a lot to do with practices in Europe that the colonists wanted to distance themselves from. Official government religions were common in Europe which resulted in oppression of non-government sanctioned religions. With all the protestant sects here at the time there were fears that government might adopt one official religious denomination and oppress the others. The solution was to simply add a prohibition on the federal government involving itself with religion at all.

The unamended Constitution excluded religion from the cognizance of federal authority by withholding the rights of conscience from the grant of powers to the U. S. Government. James Madison sold the Constitution to the Virginians with his argument that the national government had "not a shadow of a right" to meddle in religion and that even the slightest government involvement in religion would be a most flagrant violation of the Constitution.


They also added that there could be no religious test to hold office which would require a particular set of beliefs to serve in office

The religious test was included in the unamended Constitution. It actually caused many to be suspicious because if the government was not granted any power over religion there was no need to prohibit a religious test.


although such religious tests did exist in some states at the time in order to hold state office.

On paper only, dude, They were never enforced. You will not find one instance of someone not being allowed to run for a state office on account of religion after the U. S. Constitution was adopted.


Some people take Jefferson's comments about a "wall of separation" between church and state to mean no religion should be involved in public life at all and point to that statement as proof that seperation of church and state was meant to be absolute. Seeing that Jefferson attended Church regularly as president and issued his own edition of the bible, it's doubtful he meant to declare any sort of war on religion.

What does that have to do with the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution? Show me where any lawmaker ever suggested that the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted according to something Thomas Jefferson wrote a decade after the Constitution became the law of the land.


On the other hand, some view the presence of Christian tradition in the government as evidence that the founders meant to create a "Christian nation" in the sense of some sort of theocracy. The truth is somewhere in between.

The truth is they didn't give the government any power whatsoever over the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it.


Though they didn't want government playing favorites, the framers believed that in order for a people to govern themselves they needed a moral framework to support that.

Dude, what does that have to do with the meaning of the Constitution?


As Edmund Burke pointed out, a people who lack restraint from within require external restraint. Otherwise, if people can't control themselves then more laws and law enforcement becomes neccissary to control them, which by it's nature has a chilling effect on liberty.

Edmund Burke was despised by the founders of our republic.


The founders believed that Christianity was the key to promoting personal restraint and responsibility, so in that sense they encouraged it as a neccissary part of a free society.

Dude, the Constitution does not grant the government power to encourage religion. Government encouragement of religion, other than by preventing the unification of religion and civil government, is manifestly evil.


In a nutshell, they created government as a mere mechanism that a moral people could use in a moral fashion. They expected virtue to flow upward from the people to the government as opposed to government having to impose morality on the people.

I don't know about all that, but I do know the lawmakers didn't give the U. S. Government any authority whatsoever over the things that are God's.

[Flash The Cash]

Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

[Flash The Cash]

Before and After

Before the U. S. Constitution was adopted

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'; [

After the U. S. Constitution was adopted

Congress [in 1791] refused [I]the petition of the Reverend Joseph Willard and others, in behalf of the congregational clergy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was read, stating "that printers in some of the states are now undertaking to publish editions of the Holy Bible, a work which, in its nature, requires a most critical and faithful inspection, and which, in other Christian countries, is performed under the direction of the supreme authority;" and praying "Congress to take this interesting subject into their consideration, and to direct such measures as, in their wisdom, may be thought proper, to secure tire public from impositions by inaccurate editions of the Holy Scriptures. Source: Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793; MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790.