• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Perpetrated Lie of Today's Separation of Church and State

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So you just think you understand the First Amendment better than the Supreme Court. Gotcha.

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
OHHHH... You wanted a "gotcha" moment! Why didn't you say so :)

However, I wouldn't agree with the Supreme Court. The current construct of the idea of the wall of separation evolved without precedent and was evidenced in the removal of God from all public forums which for centuries had been in place.

The reality of this very controversial ruling is quite evident with this statement:

"The Court, in this case, found no violation of the establishment clause by the state of New Jersey in its providing transportation for students attending Catholic parochial schools, which struck several dissenting justices as inconsistent with a wall of strict separation. Ever since Everson, there has been ongoing debate not only over how strictly to apply the wall of separation in particular cases, but whether that metaphor accurately reflects the meaning of the religion clauses."

Even the 5/4 ruling shows how controversial it was.

As Justice Rehnquist said in reference to this, and very appropriately may I add,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson [v. Board of Education].” Rehnquist added that the Court’s establishment clause jurisprudence “has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”

Notice that he gives a very specific timeframe when legislation from the bench on this issue started.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
As a descendant of the Cherokee and Choctaw, I would like to talk about the United States being founded upon Christian principles and being a Christian nation. Manifest Destiny was one of the excuses used to justify the forced removals of Native American tribes.

Let us not forget that this so-called Christian nation resides on stolen tribal lands. Let us not forget that millions of Native American men, women and children were forcibly removed from their tribal lands and displaced, so that white [often Christian] settlers could own that land. The U.S. federal government has violated every single one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with various tribal nations, despite the fact that Article VI of the Constitution clearly states: "and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Entire tribes were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands and displaced, forced to live in third-world impoverished conditions on Reservations (also known as Prisoner of War Camps).

Furthermore...

Native Americans were denied US citizenship for 148 years until The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

There were countless massacres of entire Native American tribes, such as Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.

There were many death marches during the forced removals and relocations, like the Trail of Tears into Indian Territory, and that land was later stolen to become the state of Oklahoma through the Oklahoma Land Run.

Native American religious sacred sites and burial grounds, where the remains of their ancestors and family, could be desecrated and destroyed until the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990.

There was cultural genocide through the American Indian Boarding Schools whose primary purpose was to 'Kill the Indian, Save the Man' and forcibly Christianize Indian children with the purpose to destroy everything that had to do with being Indian. They were stripped of their identity and heritage. They weren't allowed to speak in their native tongue, and they were punished if they did.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but Native Americans were denied religious freedom for 202 years until The American Indian Religious Act of 1978. It was once illegal for them to perform their religious and spiritual ceremonies in public (like the Sun Dance and the Ghost Dance) and performing these ceremonial dances in public was punishable by imprisonment.

Now let's take a look at what some of the Christian "Founding Fathers" had to say about Native Americans.

“If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.” - Benjamin Franklin

“This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.” - George W.

“The hunter or savage state requires a greater extent of territory to sustain it, than is compatible with the progress and just claims of civilized life, and must yield to it. Nothing is more certain, than, if the Indian tribes do not abandon that state, and become civilized, that they will decline, and become extinct. The hunter state, tho maintained by warlike spirits, presents but a feeble resistance to the more dense, compact, and powerful population of civilized man.” - James Monroe

Source: Nice Day for a Genocide: Shocking Quotes on Indians By US Leaders, Pt 1

Also read: Nice Day for a Genocide: Shocking Quotes on Indians by U.S. Leaders, Pt. 2

"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles of racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its Indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it." - Martin Luther King, Jr. (Dr. King spoke out against the genocide of Native Americans)

If we were to take an honest look at the founding of America, and looking beyond the facade of this nation being founded upon Christian principles, we would humbly admit that America is a nation built on violated treaties, stolen tribal lands, and slavery.

America was not founded upon Christian principles or upon freedom, liberty and justice for all. It was originally founded upon the attempted genocide of Native Americans, massive land theft, and hundreds of broken treaties. It was also founded upon white supremacy that manifested itself through slavery, racism, discrimination and oppression of minorities. Native Americans, African-Americans, and other minorities, were not free nor did they have liberties or justice or the same equality as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male had when America was first founded. Minorities were suppressed, subjugated, and legally discriminated against.

Slavery was legal for 89 years and for 99 years after slavery was finally abolished, the descendants of the freed slaves were then denied rights and equality to white people and legally segregated from white people until the Civil Rights Movement of 1964. African-Americans and other minorities were also denied the right to vote until the Voting Act of 1965. "No Colored" signs, "No Mexicans" signs, "No Indians and dogs" signs, and "Whites Only" signs once dawned in public stores and public restaurants. African-Americans and other minorities were oppressed, subjugated, segregated, discriminated against and denied equality for 188 years.

African-Americans had to sit at the back of the public bus and were legally required to give up their seat to a white person. They weren't allowed to eat at the same counter as white people in a public restaurant or use the same public restroom as white people or use the same drinking fountain as white people. Black children weren't allowed to go to the same school with white children until the Supreme Court intervened with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. It took another 3 years and the presence of the National Guard before black children were allowed to attend schools with white children, beginning in Little Rock, Arkansas.
 
Last edited:

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
  1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

  2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.

  3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.

  4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

  5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

  6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).

  7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.

  8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.

  9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.

  10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73

  11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

  12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.

  13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

  • Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
  • Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
  • The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
  • services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
  • had a designated seat, (5)
  • and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
  • Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
  • Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
  • and included women (9)
  • and blacks. (10)
  • Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
  • And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe Christianity should be promoted and endorsed by our national leaders?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Correct... as long as you don't infringe on the right of Christians.
Would you be okay with it being where you wanted to have the 10 Commandments to be displayed? Would you be okay if it was next to it, along with passages from the Koran, along with passages from the Heart Sutra?

The point you seem to be not acknowledging here, is that it is an infringement upon non-Christian students to have a religious text displayed in the classroom. That is clearly endorsing that religion, and not neutral in any form. Is that fair to atheist children? That's not their belief system, nor is Hinduism yours.

Doesn't it make more sense to just be neutral, rather than advertising your religion to students not of your own faith? Would you like a Hare Krishna to chant during one of your church services to the children in your congregation?

Look at the anti-Christian stance that is being displayed:

Can you place the 10 Commandments.... NO

but:

07iht-muslims.4.7022566.html

You can have foot baths for Muslims.

Would you call that fair?
Why on earth do you interpret this as anti-Christian? I don't. It says very clearly what is going on in the article, if you read it through:

"Our policy is to object whenever public funds are spent on any brick-and-mortar component of religion," said Kary Moss, director of the Michigan Civil Liberties Union. "What makes this different, though, is that the foot baths themselves can be used by anyone, don't have any symbolic value and are not stylized in a religious way. They're in a regular restroom, and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court, as to Muslim students."

Then, too, Moss said, the health and safety component is not normally part of religious accommodation cases.

"This came from the maintenance staff, which was worried about the wet floors," she said. "We were also aware that if the university said students could not wash their feet in the sink anymore, that could present a different civil liberties problem, interfering with Muslim students' ability to practice their religion."
There is NO comparison to this, and displaying scriptural texts for student to look at every day that are not part of their own religion. This was done because students were falling from trying to wash their feet in the standing sink! Not at all comparable.

My question to you is why do you want to put the 10 Commandments in a public school? To tell children about God? That's the only reason I can think of. What's your reason? Please explain.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I was hoping Ken would answer this one.
I'm hoping he will as well. It's a honest question. Whataboutisms, isn't an answer. Why should any religious texts be on display in a public school? What purpose do they serve, other than to tell children about that religion's God. "Be a Christian" is the message. Why do they think they are entitled to use public school as a platform for religion?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Never was today's separation of church and state.
I mostly agree that the idea of separation of church and state is one of a state that is under God, and oaths to God are involved from the beginning.

It matters most when we talk about rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech. The founders talk about rights, and these rights are understood to come from somewhere behind human ability, beyond human authority. They are not granted by the government. The government is of the people by the people and for the people, but rights derive not from people. People do not have the authority (or the government by extension) to deprive rights.

You could, like a deist, posit that rights come from nature; but you cannot posit that they derive from the people. That is inconsistent with the basis of our government's founding.

Even so I think our government allows atheism and recognizes atheists as a type of theists, semantics be damned. They are 1. created 2. have rights 3. cannot have their rights deprived 4. equal to citizens who are in various churches

The separation of Church and State seems to me to impose various limitations upon churches and the impositions of government. The government may not impose that people attend church, because this will automatically enrich one church over another. It may not tax churches unequally nor to the point of infringing the practice of religion. It may not prevent the practice of going to church. It may not declare God illegal, make other declarations about God such as clarifications about God.

"In God we trust" on the money is unconstitutional, but most people don't care about that. It feels good. I think it is dangerous and represents a departure from what is healthy for the country. It is above all hypocritical. If we trust in God then it will be plain enough. The way we treat our money speaks otherwise and makes this statement upon our coins a shame and embarrassment.

Overall I agree. The 'Separation of Church and State' is not so separate as many would have it to be, though I understand why there is such a reaction. The government has allowed too much infringement, too much Church and State mixture; and this naturally results in an overreaction.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Out of curiosity, why do you believe Christianity should be promoted and endorsed by our national leaders?

I wouldn't say that I want it to be promoted nor do I demand or even request that it be endorsed by a particular national leader. Did I mention that somewhere?

I believe that freedom of religion is embedded in the !st Amendment... and not freedom FROM religion.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that freedom of religion is embedded in the !st Amendment... and not freedom FROM religion.
You believe people are not free to not have a religion? What do you propose for atheists then? Mandatory indoctrination? Is this why you want religion to be part of the public school education? Because Constitutionally, you do not believe they have the right to be free from religion, and atheist children need to be taught about God by their public schools?
 

Friend of Mara

Active Member
I wouldn't say that I want it to be promoted nor do I demand or even request that it be endorsed by a particular national leader. Did I mention that somewhere?

I believe that freedom of religion is embedded in the !st Amendment... and not freedom FROM religion.
How can one have freedom of religion without the freedom to reject a religion? Am I allowed to say I believe in the nothing god? His special power is not existing. The commandments were "do what you want"?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Would you be okay with it being where you wanted to have the 10 Commandments to be displayed? Would you be okay if it was next to it, along with passages from the Koran, along with passages from the Heart Sutra?

The point you seem to be not acknowledging here, is that it is an infringement upon non-Christian students to have a religious text displayed in the classroom. That is clearly endorsing that religion, and not neutral in any form. Is that fair to atheist children? That's not their belief system, nor is Hinduism yours.

Doesn't it make more sense to just be neutral, rather than advertising your religion to students not of your own faith? Would you like a Hare Krishna to chant during one of your church services to the children in your congregation?

I think you have misunderstood what I have said (and, at the least, can't find where I said anything like above)

I thought I said I had no problem with the Koran scriptures and passages from the Heart Sutra. Please show me where I said otherwise.

I really don't understand the church statement. Have I intimated that we should have the whole of the school should listen to a preaching?

It sounds like you have totally missed my point.

Why on earth do you interpret this as anti-Christian? I don't. It says very clearly what is going on in the article, if you read it through:

"Our policy is to object whenever public funds are spent on any brick-and-mortar component of religion," said Kary Moss, director of the Michigan Civil Liberties Union. "What makes this different, though, is that the foot baths themselves can be used by anyone, don't have any symbolic value and are not stylized in a religious way. They're in a regular restroom, and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court, as to Muslim students."

Then, too, Moss said, the health and safety component is not normally part of religious accommodation cases.

"This came from the maintenance staff, which was worried about the wet floors," she said. "We were also aware that if the university said students could not wash their feet in the sink anymore, that could present a different civil liberties problem, interfering with Muslim students' ability to practice their religion."
There is NO comparison to this, and displaying scriptural texts for student to look at every day that are not part of their own religion. This was done because students were falling from trying to wash their feet in the standing sink! Not at all comparable.

My question to you is why do you want to put the 10 Commandments in a public school? To tell children about God? That's the only reason I can think of. What's your reason? Please explain.

Again... I think you misunderstood what I said. I never said that foot-washing was anti-Christian (or at least that was my attempt). The "anti-Christian" was that it was ok to have foot-washing for Muslims and yet be anti-Christian by the school.

This reasoning, IMV, is a copout and a white-wash:
"What makes this different, though, is that the foot baths themselves can be used by anyone, don't have any symbolic value and are not stylized in a religious way."

I'm sure you don't really believe that statement. For centuries no university needed a foot wash. They built it because of a Muslim desire... but it isn't religious in purpose? I know you don't believe that.

Why the Ten Commandments? Because there is freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I mostly agree that the idea of separation of church and state is one of a state that is under God, and oaths to God are involved from the beginning.

It matters most when we talk about rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech. The founders talk about rights, and these rights are understood to come from somewhere behind human ability, beyond human authority. They are not granted by the government. The government is of the people by the people and for the people, but rights derive not from people. People do not have the authority (or the government by extension) to deprive rights.
Very well said!!

You could, like a deist, posit that rights come from nature; but you cannot posit that they derive from the people. That is inconsistent with the basis of our government's founding.

Again... well said.

Even so I think our government allows atheism and recognizes atheists as a type of theists, semantics be damned. They are 1. created 2. have rights 3. cannot have their rights deprived 4. equal to citizens who are in various churches

True... true...

The separation of Church and State seems to me to impose various limitations upon churches and the impositions of government. The government may not impose that people attend church, because this will automatically enrich one church over another. It may not tax churches unequally nor to the point of infringing the practice of religion. It may not prevent the practice of going to church. It may not declare God illegal, make other declarations about God such as clarifications about God.

Excellent.

"In God we trust" on the money is unconstitutional, but most people don't care about that. It feels good. I think it is dangerous and represents a departure from what is healthy for the country. It is above all hypocritical. If we trust in God then it will be plain enough. The way we treat our money speaks otherwise and makes this statement upon our coins a shame and embarrassment.

At least the rejection of "in God we trust" fails again and again..

"On Monday, the court rejected without comment the challenge from activist Michael Newdow, who claimed that the inscription "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment, Fox News reports."

The Constitution is actually a document that is based on the Declaration of Independence which is the cornerstone of the Constitution. So I am not sure it isn't legal:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

With that statement along with Congress declaring the Motto and signed by the sitting president of that time along with failed attempts to remove it... I think it is quite legal. IMO

Overall I agree. The 'Separation of Church and State' is not so separate as many would have it to be, though I understand why there is such a reaction. The government has allowed too much infringement, too much Church and State mixture; and this naturally results in an overreaction.

Or an anti-God sentiment? I'm not sure...
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You believe people are not free to not have a religion? What do you propose for atheists then? Mandatory indoctrination? Is this why you want religion to be part of the public school education? Because Constitutionally, you do not believe they have the right to be free from religion, and atheist children need to be taught about God by their public schools?
I'm not sure just what you have read... and maybe the real question is why you have a problem with freedom of religion?

As I said before "Freedom of religion includes freedom not to have religion"
I have not espoused indoctrination (a violation of free will and freedom)

So... just where are you coming from? Anti-religion? or freedom.
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
I'm hoping he will as well. It's a honest question. Whataboutisms, isn't an answer. Why should any religious texts be on display in a public school? What purpose do they serve, other than to tell children about that religion's God. "Be a Christian" is the message. Why do they think they are entitled to use public school as a platform for religion?

If it's good for one religion, it should be good for all. Funny how when other religions want their day in the sun, these folks would rather take their ball and go home than share the game with other teams.
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
I'm hoping he will as well. It's a honest question. Whataboutisms, isn't an answer. Why should any religious texts be on display in a public school? What purpose do they serve, other than to tell children about that religion's God. "Be a Christian" is the message. Why do they think they are entitled to use public school as a platform for religion?

They have been getting away with for so long and they don't want to give that privilege up.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
How can one have freedom of religion without the freedom to reject a religion? Am I allowed to say I believe in the nothing god? His special power is not existing. The commandments were "do what you want"?

Because the issue was, in the creation of the United States, is to be free to worship God as you wish. If you don't have a God, then you are free to do so because religion cannot be abridged or forced upon. So, yes, you are allowed to say that you believe in a nothing god or just worship yourself as your own, if you so desire.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
At least the rejection of "in God we trust" fails again and again..

"On Monday, the court rejected without comment the challenge from activist Michael Newdow, who claimed that the inscription "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment, Fox News reports."

The Constitution is actually a document that is based on the Declaration of Independence which is the cornerstone of the Constitution. So I am not sure it isn't legal:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

With that statement along with Congress declaring the Motto and signed by the sitting president of that time along with failed attempts to remove it... I think it is quite legal. IMO
Sometimes when I say something is unconstitutional I mean merely that I think it bad for the more perfect union. It is legal but shouldn't be is what I mean to imply by 'Unconstitutional'. You could find within the text of the written constitution some way to observe it as legal, but that doesn't mean its healthy -- merely because it can be construed that way.

Or an anti-God sentiment? I'm not sure...
I blame anti-God sentiment on other things, however yes could be because of anti-God sentiment at least in part. Symptom to me. I must digress.

I've been looking around online at churches in my state. Almost every one condemns several others either by its web site or by sermons, creeds or statements of faith. Its the old "We are the true orthodox" scenario. "Everyone else is suspect and may cause the sheep of God to rust." Everywhere. I mean you can walk 10 feet and find a church, but you won't find one that lets you think something other than what the head pastor approves. They are great churches otherwise, and they do some good things. They do terrible PR for God and have no room for God to interfere in their understanding of matters spiritual. They codify everything. Each has a little 2020 Definitely_Not_A_Talmud that they have written down, but they'll tell you its all bible. Its not like in most places. Its not like Pennsylvania, for sure. I believe somewhere around here there is a warp gate to Arkansas though.

Of course there is going to develop anti God sentiment almost everywhere if God can't tolerate God. Its all shibboleths and stabbing between churches, yet they want to send missionaries to Zanzibar. A baptist of type B dare not marry a this or a that. Its intolerable and depressing and the cause of almost every problem in modern society. Talk about something which undermines a more perfect union! Who would take seriously that this is a nation under God? Its more like a nation under paranoia.

I understand I'm an extreme case, but these people wouldn't break bread even with you and you are perfectly delightful. Not until you filled out a survey and gave a stool sample. They don't believe in the power of God, is what I'm saying. "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." That's why "In God we trust" is hypocritical and why there are so many God haters here in the states.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Because the issue was, in the creation of the United States, is to be free to worship God as you wish. If you don't have a God, then you are free to do so because religion cannot be abridged or forced upon. So, yes, you are allowed to say that you believe in a nothing god or just worship yourself as your own, if you so desire.

Except, religious freedom wasn't extended to Native Americans for 202 years until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed and signed by President Carter in August 1978. For 202 years, Native American religions were infringed upon by the federal government and state governments. Prior to this Act, the practice of Native American religions were restricted, including access to sacred sites, the use of sacred objects and materials, outlawing traditional ceremonial dances, and forbidding Native Americans to exercise their traditional religious rites. For 202 years, Native Americans were prohibited by law to practice their tribal religion.

“During the 1970s Congress investigated allegations that Indian religious practices were being severely disrupted, often unintentionally, by state and federal laws and by the actions of government officials. The House of Representatives issued a report that substantiated these claims. The report found that Indians were often prevented from visiting their sacred sites, denied the use of religious sacraments, and kept from performing services in their traditional manner. The report recommended that Congress take measures to protect Indian religious practices from unnecessary government interference. In 1978 Congress passed a joint resolution to this effect, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). The act, as with all joint resolutions, contains no penalty provision that can be enforced against violators. However, AIRFA declares a policy that Congress has pledged to pursue… Sadly, AIRFA has not been very effective due to the absence of a penalty provision.” —Stephen L. Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes: The Basic ACLU Guide to Indian and Tribal Rights, 1992 (source: 1978: American Indian freedom of religion legalized).
 
Last edited:

Friend of Mara

Active Member
Because the issue was, in the creation of the United States, is to be free to worship God as you wish. If you don't have a God, then you are free to do so because religion cannot be abridged or forced upon. So, yes, you are allowed to say that you believe in a nothing god or just worship yourself as your own, if you so desire.
Sweet. I have freedom from religion. Good talk.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
  1. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

  2. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.

  3. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.

  4. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

  5. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

  6. Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).

  7. William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.

  8. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.

  9. Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.

  10. Henry Highland Garnet, Memorial Discourse (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), p. 73

  11. Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

  12. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.

  13. From the Library of Congress, at https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.
https://www.givehim15.com/post/january-25-2022

Jefferson letter of wall of separation was not about today's separation but a statement that there would not be a "single denomination forcing their denomination" as the King of England did.

  • Two days later, after he wrote that letter, he attended church "IN THE CAPITOL" -- which would obviously destroy today's lie of separation of church and state.(1)
  • Numerous presidents and members of Congress attended church services there - for decades! - including John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Lincoln and others. Adams explained why he attended: “I consider it as one of my public duties - as a representative of the people - to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall.”(2)
  • The Rostrum of the House Speaker was used as the pulpit, and Congress purchased the hymnals! I realize you probably weren’t taught this in our public school system, which now propagandizes and revises history, but it is true.Actually, the Capitol was used for church services before ever being used by Congress. Approved December 4, 1800, by both the House and Senate, (3)
  • services began before the entire Capitol was completed and Congress itself could move in. Jefferson, as Vice President at the time and therefore leader of the Senate, approved it on behalf of the Senate. He attended the services for years, throughout his time as Vice President and President, (4)
  • had a designated seat, (5)
  • and was so committed to it he even made the journey in inclement weather. (6)
  • Services first began to be held in the north wing of the Capitol, moved to Statuary Hall as they grew in number, and eventually landed in the House Chamber. It was, in fact, the first official use of the Chamber on December 13, 1857, with as many as 2000 people in attendance! (7)
  • Services were interdenominational, speakers were local pastors or the House and Senate Chaplains, (8)
  • and included women (9)
  • and blacks. (10)
  • Some churches were actually allowed to use it as their meeting place until they procured other buildings. (11)
  • And when needed, the Supreme Court Chamber, then in the Capitol building, was also used! (12,13)

Never was today's separation of church and state.
It always seemed clear to me it was more about not establishing a state religion or state church like you have in England and elsewhere in Europe. The US Constitution doesn't stop public schools from having school mandated or teacher-led prayers, despite what erroneous Supreme Court rulings from the past say (they've made multiple unconstitutional rulings), for example. If you don't want to join in, that is also your right and you have also have a right not to be harassed over it or forced into it.

It's like how when I decided not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in my public school where this was the norm (I was really mad at the government after 9/11), that was my right and I sat through it quietly with no problems.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sometimes when I say something is unconstitutional I mean merely that I think it bad for the more perfect union. It is legal but shouldn't be is what I mean to imply by 'Unconstitutional'. You could find within the text of the written constitution some way to observe it as legal, but that doesn't mean its healthy -- merely because it can be construed that way.

I understand. In this particular case I wouldn't agree but I do understand and certainly it isn't such a sticky point that I would need to argue the point. :)

I blame anti-God sentiment on other things, however yes could be because of anti-God sentiment at least in part. Symptom to me. I must digress.

I've been looking around online at churches in my state. Almost every one condemns several others either by its web site or by sermons, creeds or statements of faith. Its the old "We are the true orthodox" scenario. "Everyone else is suspect and may cause the sheep of God to rust." Everywhere. I mean you can walk 10 feet and find a church, but you won't find one that lets you think something other than what the head pastor approves. They are great churches otherwise, and they do some good things. They do terrible PR for God and have no room for God to interfere in their understanding of matters spiritual. They codify everything. Each has a little 2020 Definitely_Not_A_Talmud that they have written down, but they'll tell you its all bible. Its not like in most places. Its not like Pennsylvania, for sure. I believe somewhere around here there is a warp gate to Arkansas though.

Of course there is going to develop anti God sentiment almost everywhere if God can't tolerate God. Its all shibboleths and stabbing between churches, yet they want to send missionaries to Zanzibar. A baptist of type B dare not marry a this or a that. Its intolerable and depressing and the cause of almost every problem in modern society. Talk about something which undermines a more perfect union! Who would take seriously that this is a nation under God? Its more like a nation under paranoia.

I understand I'm an extreme case, but these people wouldn't break bread even with you and you are perfectly delightful. Not until you filled out a survey and gave a stool sample. They don't believe in the power of God, is what I'm saying. "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." That's why "In God we trust" is hypocritical and why there are so many God haters here in the states.

That is SO true in so many cases. I am thankful that in our county it isn't the case. Many people who come from other places say "This is truly a different atmosphere". I love the scripture where it says in Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

That is the way God wanted it... a more perfect union. Different parts, but all necessary.
 
Top