Help! Regarding Separation of Church/State.

[GiovanniC]

I wrote a letter to the editor recently. Here is the text of this letter:

"In a recent letter, Ms. Hastings complains that " don't even tell our kids what our forefathers said, taking prayer, the Bible and now the Ten Commandments not just out of our schools, but our public buildings." She appears to believe that it's very important to do as the founding fathers intended, and she appears to be of the opinion that they intended for Christianity to be forced on everyone. I thought that maybe we should get the founding fathers to tell us their thoughts about that. Here's what some of them said:

"...eligion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin Franklin, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Now, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin are all very widely-known and respected founding fathers, but each of these statements were -- for the most part -- simply declarations of their personal opinions. To get a real idea of what the founding fathers OFFICIALLY believed should be the role of religion in this nation's government, one would have to look to some sort of official government document. The Constitution of the United States does not specifically mention the Christian God or the Christian religion. The only official document to weigh in on this matter was the Treaty of Tripoli (1796-97), which was written during the George Washington administration and passed during John Adams's administration. Article 11 begins as follows, "As the Government of the United States of America is NOT, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I admire Ms. Hastings's desire for our government to be run the way the founding fathers intended, and now that she knows what their intentions were, I'm sure she'll be leading the charge toward "taking prayer, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments not just out of our schools, but our public buildings" as well."

The newspaper today printed a rebuttal.

I would like DU's help in crafting some sort of response to the claims made in the letter, if possible.

Here's the rebuttal letter.

"Once again <GiovanniC> shows his ignorance, not just of the Bible, but of American history as well. In his April 15 letter, he claims America wasn't founded as a Christian nation by referring to several Founding Father quotes and by stating that neither God nor the Bible is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The book, "Original Intent" by David Barton, answers these quotes succinctly. There is too much documentation for a VOP letter, but suffice it to say those quotes are out of context.

The Declaration of Independence is our reason for being free and it does indeed refer to the Christian God, several times. The battle cries of the American Revolution were "No taxation without representation" and "No King but King Jesus." The Federalist Papers explained to the common people how the government would operate under the new Constitution, kind of like a government-made-simple book. The Constitution only provides details of how the government would operate under principles set forth in the Declaration, so of course it doesn't mention God. It wasn't meant to.

Look at the First Amendment; the original intent was for the federal government to not force a Christian denomination on everybody, as Great Britain and Europe did. They never meant to divorce Christianity from government. If they had meant this, why did President Thomas Jefferson have the government pay for Bibles to be given to the Indians? Or why would Congress authorize Christian chaplains for the Continental Army? Why would President Adams say, "The general principles on which our Founding Fathers achieved independence were the principles of Christianity"? Why would President George Washington say to the Indians, "You do well to learn our arts and ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention"?

I challenge <GiovanniC> to read "Original Intent." It may not change his mind, but it will at least show him that the quotes he chose are all out of context. Reading his letter was like reading from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Web site. It not only shows no logical reasoning, it shows ignorance of our country's founding and desperation in taking quotes out of context just to prove a point.

[No2W2004]

1. It comes from Ashcroft....figures.

Mr. Ashcroft began his Bob Jones speech by citing what he claimed
was "a slogan of the American Revolution", supposedly directed by
the patriots at George III's emissaries -- that "we have no King but
Jesus". He repeated that view under questioning by Arlen Specter
before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 17.

Which is all very interesting but highly misleading. The line
Mr. Ashcroft quoted is best known as the slogan of a radical religious
sect of the 17th century English Revolution, the Fifth Monarchy Men.
The Fifth Monarchists took their name from the biblical prophecy in
the Book of Daniel that four successive monarchies would precede the
coming of an eternal kingdom. Like other millenarians of the time,
they believed that, following the execution of Charles I in 1649, the
Fifth Monarchy was nigh, and that its King would be Jesus.

"The Fifth Monarchists", writes B. S. Capp, the leading scholarly
authority on the group, "were a political and religious sect expecting
the immanent Kingdom of Christ on Earth, a theocratic regime in which
the saints would establish a godly discipline over the unregenerate
masses and prepare for the Second Coming".

Crushed by the royalist restoration in 1660, the Fifth Monarchy
Men faded into oblivion. Their beliefs survived in the radical
plebeian English underground, and popped up here and there in the
colonies. But their battlecry -- "No King but King Jesus" -- was
hardly "a slogan of the American Revolution", along the lines of
"no taxation without representation", or "give me liberty or give
me death". No major patriot leader took the Fifth Monarchist line.
In his Bob Jones address, Mr. Ashcroft confused his centuries, his
slogans -- and his revolutions.

He also mistakenly implied that the Declaration of Independence
was a Christian text. The "no king but Jesus" motto, he said at
Bob Jones, eventually turned up in what he called our nation's
"fundamental documents". After all, he noted, the Declaration spoke
of rights "endowed by Creator".

The uncomfortable historical fact is that the author of the
Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, who doubted the divinity
(let along the kingship) of Jesus. But no matter: to Mr. Ashcroft,
the Creator could only mean Christ. "America has been different", he
explained. "We have no king but Jesus."

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2001/RRE.theocracy.html

[freetobegay]

2. Try these links

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march96/morris.html

I hope these links help you.

[Fenris]

3. He loses the debate for invoking David Barton

David Barton is the head of Wall Builders, an organization that is "dedicated to the restoration of the moral and religious foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined." In other words, Barton organization affirms the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws are based upon Biblical texts.

The Declaration of Independence does not invoke the name "God", only "the Creator". Further, the Declaration was a list of grievances directed at George III and the Constitution, written years later, did not draw from it. The Constitution drew mostly from the Articles of Confederation, which was the first constitution of the United States.

If he is want to accuse anyone of lack of logic, it should be himself, for invoking quotes from individuals who are quite ambiguous in regards to personal religious beliefs.

[Gasolinedream]

4. I can assure you...

Thomas Jefferson was very, very against a theocracy.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Thomas Jefferson made his own Bible and most of what he took out were things like the Miracles and other things he thought were not accurate but rather stories that made Jesus seem larger than life.

These people can refuse to believe it if they want, but that's the truth. THomas Jefferson would be appalled by the extreme distortion of his beliefs by the far religious right.

[prodigal_green]

5. this site is helpful...

www.infidels.org

Here's where people make the mistake...

Some settlers, particularly the pilgrims, came here to worship their merciless and vengeful god. They did not try to break away from British rule. It took a gang of Freemasons to do that.

The rhetoric to which they refer was just part of common parlance. I don't know about the bible give-away, I've never heard of that before, we also handed out blankets infected with small pox.

The separation of church and state was SO important, that after nailing down the mechanics of government, somebody said, Hmmm, I think maybe we should include a list of rights conferred to the people that the government cannot take away. Their first choice was separation of church and state and freedom of the press. These go together because they both ensure intellectual freedom.

[Caution]

6. The text of the Treaty of Tripoli. Out of Context how?

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

[Bandit]

8. A Treaty is the Supreme Law of the land

This was the very first Treaty ever signed bby the American Government and it is quite explicit in that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity It just doesn't get any more plain than that but they will not except fact as an answer.

[LeahMira]

7. Ah, well...

... it seems that once you begin to search out quotes from the founders indicating that they weren't religious folks you'll find that the other side is able to dredge up quotes from the founders that indicate they did believe in G-d.

Recently, a poster wondered what exactly is the "Vision for America" that these folks have. It's a very good question. I suppose I'd wonder exactly what changes your correspondent imagines will come to pass if there were to be prayer and Bible reading in school along with displays of the Ten Commandments in both the school and the Courthouse, or what evidence s/he has that those things ever made a positive difference in the past.

S/he might also want to take a look at the nations that do insist on including religious affirmations in all aspects of daily life today. I suspect she'd find that "Christian" nations are generally not the sorts of nations where s/he'd care to make his/her home.

[ieoeja]

9. Several?

From the rebuttal: The Declaration of Independence is our reason for being free and it does indeed refer to the Christian God, several times.

Within the Declaration of Independence the words "God" and "Creator" are used exactly one time each. "Christ" and "Jesus" do not appear at all. And even "God" appears as "Nature's God".

That being said many people DID want the US to be a Christian nation. Patrick Henry, for example, was furious with Jefferson and Madison for building the wall of separation. It was not the primary reason for Henry's opposition to the Constitution under which we labor today. But it did add fuel to his (f)ire.

Of course, all of that was two hundred years ago which has little relevance to today's society. If the Constitution were written today by the same sort of people, there would be no Bill of Right concerning the quartering of troops in private residences as that is an issue that never arises. Conversely, since state and local governments frequently trample our rights against unlawful search and seizures, etc on the basis that driving is a "priviledge, not a right", those same people writing the Constitution today would probably include a Bill of Right guaranteeing the individuals use of public highways.

[GiovanniC]

10. My Letter

Was actually a rebuttal of a different whacked-out fundamentalist lady who said that the founding fathers intended for the United States to be a Christian society and wanted us to teach children the Bible in public schools. She cited quotes from Patrick Henry to make her case that the founding fathers built this country as a Christian Nation.