USA - founded as a Christian nation?

[rushmc 23]

gowlerk

Quote

If one takes the time to read the Federalist papers it is clear that the founders did not want a state sponsored or favored religion. They also never intended to exclude religion from government!

It does not matter what those papers say. They are not law. However, the 1st Amendment is Law.

The ignorance of US history and the founding of this country is more than evident in your post here.

Do you know what the federalist papers are and what they represent when looking at the construction of the US Constitution?

I doubt it.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The following is from History.com.

The 85 essays expressed the intent of the different articles in the proposed new Constitution and shows how the arguments were crafted to protect freedoms from government overreach.

We are seeing court overreach today.

Quote

Twitter


Google




These are a series of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, urging ratification of the Constitution.After a new Constitution, intended to replace the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, had been hammered out at the Philadelphia Convention, it was agreed that it would go into effect when nine of the thirteen states had approved it in ratifying conventions. There ensued a nationwide debate over constitutional principles, and the press was inundated with letters condemning or praising the document, among them these articles, signed “Publius.”The three men—chief among them Hamilton, who wrote about two-thirds of the essays—addressed the objections of opponents, who feared a tyrannical central government that would supersede states’ rights and encroach on individual liberties. All strong nationalists, the essayists argued that, most important, the proposed system would preserve the Union, now in danger of breaking apart, and empower the federal government to act firmly and coherently in the national interest. Conflicting economic and political interests would be reconciled through a representative Congress, whose legislation would be subject to presidential veto and judicial review.

This system of checks and balances and the Constitution’s clear delineation of the powers of the federal government—few, limited, and defined, as Madison put it—would protect states’ rights and, as they saw it, individual rights. The ultimate protection of individual liberties had to wait for later passage of the Bill of Rights, for these men, as their arguments made plain, distrusted what Madison called “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Many of the constitutional provisions they praised were intended precisely to dampen democratic “excesses.”The articles, written in the spirit both of propaganda and of logical argument, probably had little influence on public opinion of the day. Nevertheless, the essays, published in book form as The Federalist in 1788, have through the years been widely read and respected for their masterly analysis and interpretation of the Constitution and the principles upon which the government of the United States was established.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Know this,

I fully support the separation of church and state.
And for the most part I do not think the sides that debate this are far apart.

That said, both sides push to take the results of their positions further.
At this time I think we have moved further to the side of those would not even allow prayer is schools.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything. But this does not mean that we move to full exclusion of what one side believes because of the wishes of others.

We freedoms must come tolerance for other beliefs. Sadly we are not doing this today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Another view on the topic from Oxford.

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-29

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

"In the year of Our Lord" isn't any more Christian than AD. Which, of course, is being supplanted in some ways by CE (much to the objection of the Conservapedia folks).

My father was a very liberal man, who was deeply (liberal) Christian. One of his closest friends as an old man was a lifelong atheist, and I can still remember Dad's confusion sometimes about how one could get a solid moral foundation without God, but that his friend M. was ample evidence that it was possible. He ended up putting it in the box containing things that he couldn't explain, but had to accept because they worked. As an engineer and college professor, that wasn't a very large box ...



Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gowlerk 2,192]

Quote

The ignorance of US history and the founding of this country is more than evident in your post here.

Do you know what the federalist papers are and what they represent when looking at the construction of the US Constitution?

Hmmm... educate me if you can. Which part of US Law directs one to the Federalist Papers when determining the Law of the Land?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Ken,

Quote

Which part of US Law directs one to the Federalist Papers when determining the Law of the Land?

None. It is nothing more than the old, 'Hey, look over here,' when you have nothing else.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) And for his comment about prayer in school. One can still pray in school. The court ruling was that people cannot be forced to pray.

[DJL 235]

rushmc

Know this,

I fully support the separation of church and state.
And for the most part I do not think the sides that debate this are far apart.

That said, both sides push to take the results of their positions further.
At this time I think we have moved further to the side of those would not even allow prayer is schools.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything. But this does not mean that we move to full exclusion of what one side believes because of the wishes of others.

We freedoms must come tolerance for other beliefs. Sadly we are not doing this today.

As I understand it, the issue is when the school is organizing the prayers. Nothing should stop individuals from praying or even groups of students. I don't recall if there were organized prayers at school events when I was there, maybe sporting banquets, but I'm not sure.

Grade schools are now fairly devoid of school sponsor religious events/services but many colleges are not and some of those take federal dollars. I see no issue with that as long as those schools equally support all religions.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ken,

Quote

Which part of US Law directs one to the Federalist Papers when determining the Law of the Land?

None. It is nothing more than the old, 'Hey, look over here,' when you have nothing else.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) And for his comment about prayer in school. One can still pray in school. The court ruling was that people cannot be forced to pray.

Wrong on both counts

At least you are consistent......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 800]

More so given the lack of the use of 'are'.

[rushmc 23]

DJL

***Know this,

I fully support the separation of church and state.
And for the most part I do not think the sides that debate this are far apart.

That said, both sides push to take the results of their positions further.
At this time I think we have moved further to the side of those would not even allow prayer is schools.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything. But this does not mean that we move to full exclusion of what one side believes because of the wishes of others.

We freedoms must come tolerance for other beliefs. Sadly we are not doing this today.

As I understand it, the issue is when the school is organizing the prayers. Nothing should stop individuals from praying or even groups of students. I don't recall if there were organized prayers at school events when I was there, maybe sporting banquets, but I'm not sure.

Grade schools are now fairly devoid of school sponsor religious events/services but many colleges are not and some of those take federal dollars. I see no issue with that as long as those schools equally support all religions.

There are examples all across the board (see the link).

The one I was remembering stopped a student from praying as she gave a graduation speech.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=court+stops+student+from+praying+at+gratuation&spf=1499265632284

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

Do you have any actual details to back up your assertion that he's wrong? Jerry's old enough to remember the ruling and the discussion surrounding it.
If you're saying that teachers can't pray out loud and require kids to take part, yeah, that's forbidden. Prayer that "everyone is expected to join in," even if student-led, is a gray area legally in some districts, and not allowed in others. "Everyone is expected to join in" is generally something like "you're allowed not to actually say the words, or sit silently (Colin Kaepernick-like ) while the rest of the conforming and socially accepted students pray."

If you think that teacher-led prayer should be OK, does that mean that you're in favor of religious discrimination against teachers who aren't mainstream Christians? How about if, in Baptist-heavy areas, they even prefer not to hire UCC members (who are generally very liberal) as teachers?

"Equal protection to all" means even the ones you disagree with, just as "Love your neighbor as yourself" means "even if he's an asshole." US law stands on itself, that's its strength. Not that it can be used to make everyone else like us.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

I posted a link ...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 235]

The secular opinion should be that reciting a prayer is no different than reciting a Beatles verse but there's definitely a gray area. Schools should set aside a moment for "personal introspection" and let the students do what they want with the time. Most will probably just whip out their fidget spinners.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

"Equal protection to all" means even the ones you disagree with, just as "Love your neighbor as yourself" means "even if he's an asshole." US law stands on itself, that's its strength. Not that it can be used to make everyone else like us.

Wendy P.

Sadly we do no have this today.

Too many "groups" trying to carve out special considerations for themselves under the law.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

yup

[billvon 2,991]

>At least you are consistent......

He's right on both counts.

The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land.

You can still pray in school.

[billvon 2,991]

>The secular opinion should be that reciting a prayer is no different than reciting a
>Beatles verse but there's definitely a gray area.

Good example. And to extend your example, no one is going to object to kids reciting a Beatles verse out loud during recess, or to themselves during study time.

But once kids start demanding time to recite "She loves you yeah yeah yeah" during homeroom or English composition, it becomes a problem. And other parents are going to have a very valid argument that they want their kids learning English composition in English composition rather than Beatles lyrics.

[DJL 235]

billvon

>The secular opinion should be that reciting a prayer is no different than reciting a
>Beatles verse but there's definitely a gray area.

Good example. And to extend your example, no one is going to object to kids reciting a Beatles verse out loud during recess, or to themselves during study time.

But once kids start demanding time to recite "She loves you yeah yeah yeah" during homeroom or English composition, it becomes a problem. And other parents are going to have a very valid argument that they want their kids learning English composition in English composition rather than Beatles lyrics.

That is until Beatles lyrics become classical literature on par with Byron and Chaucer. "Good morning class, today we're going to study the work of Justin Beiber."

BTW, the speaker at my high school graduation quoted Snoop Dogg's "Gin and Juice" lyrics throughout his speech.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wmw999 2,447]

Well, the link was posted after I started my post, and I didn't edit. That link led to this discussion, which includes a lot of lovely context and discussion. Generally (but not universally, because humans are inconsistent), student-initiated individual prayer is protected. Schools that pull students for doing often lose if sued.

I well remember the Santa Fe school district case; it was in my then neck of the woods. It wasn't a harmless school prayer; there was all sorts of social pressure applied to pray along, or at least look like you were praying along. Good article in Texas Monthly at the time. A friend of mine, wanting to move to the country, wouldn't consider Santa Fe at the time because he was concerned about how his Hispanic wife would be treated.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 800]

I found more truth in Gin and Juice than in any version of the bible I've read.

[tkhayes 348]

Best explanation I ever heard was from some Texas Representative, cannot remember his name, but it was a video tidbit from quite a few years ago, something like:

"The founders had every chance to write Christianity into the Constitution, but they didn't"

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

Another view on the topic from Oxford.

Oxford?

That immediately makes it suspect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

As John Adams said in the Treaty of Tripoli:

"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 tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) 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."

Frank Lambert's commentary on this:

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith."

[billvon 2,991]

>Too many "groups" trying to carve out special considerations for themselves under the law.

Yep.
===============
Trump: Persecuted Christian refugees will get priority
By Max Greenwood 01/27/17

The Hill

The United States could prioritize the resettlement of Christian refugees over members of other religious groups, President Trump said on Friday.
================