quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaelscoffin:
Wow! I'm an Australian, so this thread is not particularly pertinent to me, but it sure is providing some of the more interesting reading on these forums.

Tell us how you blokes interpret the following provision from your Constitution of 1900.

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Ok, whammer, so I smell agenda here. Your interest in this topic is not exactly the disinterested discussion of the establishment clause, and the religious beliefs of the founders. That's cool, and all, but I don't think that there is any evidence to support your contention, if I understand it correctly, the the framers were looking to Jesus as the model for the separation of church and state. Considering how wordy these guys were, you would expect someone to spell this out. In addition, even assuming for a moment that some or all of the founders saw Jesus' model as a justification for the separation, that doesn't require acceptance of Jesus as their "Lord" or "Savior."

While understanding the "Render unto Caesar..." speech, I think that the later writers of the stories understood Jesus' messianic message to be one of an upcoming dissolution of all worldly things, pending the second coming. Including governments. Most of the early christians understood this to be something incipient.

(Parenthetically, and for the record, I think Jesus was an rabbi in the model of the Essenes, from the community in Qum'ran. I believe he was a radical Jewish reformer and 'nationalist.' I believe he opposed Roman rule, and objected to the collaborationist Temple hierarchy. That doesn't add anything to the discussion either, but since you showed your hand, I thought I'd go ahead and show mine.)

Finally, I'm going on vacation in the next day or so, so I'll check in when I get back.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Ok, whammer, so I smell agenda here. Your interest in this topic is not exactly the disinterested discussion of the establishment clause, and the religious beliefs of the founders. That's cool, and all, but I don't think that there is any evidence to support your contention, if I understand it correctly, the the framers were looking to Jesus as the model for the separation of church and state. Considering how wordy these guys were, you would expect someone to spell this out.

James Madison spelled it out in his Detached Memorandum.

The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious Sects a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human.

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, , or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Fortunately, like the bible, there is enough written material among the founders, that a quote can be found to justify almost any position.
Thomas Paine wrote, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
Perhaps in the end, the founding fathers were not monolithic, and, like all humans, carried around with them cultural and religious baggage, in some cases more or less lightly. I'm glad they had the very good sense to try to protect us from religious tyranny, regardless of their individual personal beliefs.

Now if only George W. could learn from their example...

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Fortunately, like the bible, there is enough written material among the founders, that a quote can be found to justify almost any position.

I didn't quote Madison in support of my interpretation of the Constitution as regards the Right of Conscience. I cited his words in support of my theory regarding the source of Madison's principle of no civil power over religion. Some of the founders located the great principle in the words of the Master, others found in reason. Madison found it in both hold writ and reason.

quote:

Thomas Paine wrote, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
Perhaps in the end, the founding fathers were not monolithic, and, like all humans, carried around with them cultural and religious baggage, in some cases more or less lightly. I'm glad they had the very good sense to try to protect us from religious tyranny, regardless of their individual personal beliefs.

The American people did not adopt the writings of Thomas Paine as a constitution of government. They adopted the "Godless Constitution" of 1788.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
...I'm glad they had the very good sense to try to protect us from religious tyranny, regardless of their individual personal beliefs.

I'm glad they had the very good sense to try to protect us from the government trying to influence our religious opinions.

quote:

Now if only George W. could learn from their example...

Don't blame Bush. Blame the American people for not marching in the streets like they did in the 1790's to express their contempt for John Adams and his fast recommendation.

Ok. I really no longer understand the point of your thread. My assumption is that you are bemoaning the absence of god in the constitution. If that's the case, then I suppose you and I are simply going to disagree. I can be thrilled that, whatever their failings, the founders felt that establishment of a state religion was sufficiently dangerous that they went out of their way to prevent it. Cf. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen
And I can continue to vote for/work toward candidates who will support this agenda. Is this a great country, or what?

His point is obvious, and it's not the absence of God in the Constitution.

Thanks mark. I decided to go ahead and look up this "National Reform Association." (NRA? Hmmm...)

I've gone over the entire thread again, and I think I've misunderstood your point, Whammer. I see, now, where you're coming from, and actually, I doubt we really have any middle ground toward which to go. I think we agree about the fundamental need to keep religion and government far, far apart.

I think we disagree about the reasons for it, and I think we disagree about the extent to which the founders allowed christianity to inform their actions and beliefs.

To be honest, I may have been quick to judge, because some of your previous posts suggest that you are a christian. I'm sorry to say that in the current environment, I expect christians to try to force their agenda through legislation, and that may have clouded my reading of your posts. I apologize for that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kendocubano,

Yeah, changing the constitution to include mention of "God" is just ridiculous.

I don't know WJ, but he agrees with you, Mike.

I was referring to the NRA...

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Ok. I really no longer understand the point of your thread. My assumption is that you are bemoaning the absence of god in the constitution.

Your assumption is incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Thanks mark. I decided to go ahead and look up this "National Reform Association." (NRA? Hmmm...)

I've gone over the entire thread again, and I think I've misunderstood your point, Whammer.

Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!

quote:

I see, now, where you're coming from, and actually, I doubt we really have any middle ground toward which to go. I think we agree about the fundamental need to keep religion and government far, far apart.

I like the way my great great grand pappy put it at the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1845. "Religion and government are two parallel lines that extend to infinity and must never meet."

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Thanks mark. I decided to go ahead and look up this "National Reform Association." (NRA? Hmmm...)

Believe it or not, the NRA is still around today. I love to read their arguments for civil authority over religion. Back in the 1800's the "Christian Nation" crowd was honest. They acknowledged that it was a "Godless Constitution" and that the founders rejected the view that civil government was a divine institution ordained by God.

Today's "Christian Nation" crowd is a bunch of liars who spew the lie that the founders intended a Church-State and that Separation of Church and State is a myth.

quote:

...I think we disagree about the reasons for it...

What, in your view, were the reasons for establishing a government with no power over religion, and what convinces you?

quote:

...and I think we disagree about the extent to which the founders allowed Christianity to inform their actions and beliefs.

The extent to which the founders allowed Christianity to inform their actions and beliefs does not alter the words of the Constitution nor the rules for interpreting it. Don't be suckered into believing that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the actions or opinions of the men who wrote and adopted it.

Are you familiar with the Rules Of Constitutional Interpretation laid down by Justice Joseph Story?

quote:

To be honest, I may have been quick to judge, because some of your previous posts suggest that you are a Christian.

I consider myself a Christian. But I don't claim to be a very good one.

quote:

I'm sorry to say that in the current environment, I expect Christians to try to force their agenda through legislation...

I have no problem with that, unless their agenda is to use the authority of civil government to control or influence our religious opinions.

quote:

...and that may have clouded my reading of your posts. I apologize for that.

You are a gentleman, and you are completely and totally and absolutely forgiven.