|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:06:46
|
http://dentonfoundation.org/churchandstate.html
This link gives an in dept discussion of the writing of this clause, including draft version. In reading those version, one will find the true meaning behind the first and second clauses of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:51:12 [Permalink]
|
The link is to the Admiral Jeremiah Denton Foundation article which attempts to prove that the Establishment Clause does not mean what it says. It quotes the Northwest Ordinance as proof:
| Article III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary in good government, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. |
This merely says that schools shall be encouraged. It does not say that public schools should indoctrinate children with religion. It does not say that taxpayers should fund religious education via public schools. Church services are a "means of education" and thus provide religious education in a perfectly fair manner without involving public schools and public funds. Private religious schools do the same.
|
- TW
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:59:07 [Permalink]
|
Pathetic, really.
That site attempts to make the establishment clause mean the exact opposite of what it means.
Doomar, go read the words of the people who wrote the constitution and the first 10 ammendments. It will help you overcome this sad delusion of yours.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 13:23:25 [Permalink]
|
I'd laugh at these distortions and historical revisionism, were it not for the fact that this represents the sharp edge of Dominionist theocracy, the precise opposite of the intention of those who wrote the Constitution. We are not governed by the Northwest Ordinance, so no distortion of that document has application to the Constitution.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 16:39:41 [Permalink]
|
I read that whole thing, and not once does its author say just how teaching religion in public school is not a governmental enforcement of religion - the very thing the author agrees that the Founders were protecting us from.
The piece is also factually incorrect about the dates of authorship of the Ordinance and the First Amendment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 17:12:59 [Permalink]
|
| Well Doomar since we are only dealing with essays I would like you to consider the following Is America a Christian Nation? May not be the best available, but I believe that this former preacher supports his argument rather well. Don't you? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 21:00:11 [Permalink]
|
As one follows the progression of wording in the multiple drafts, it is clear that the meaning is closer to the final Senate version, "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Now let's proceed from the first draft of the First Amendment offered on the floor of the House through various versions until final passage
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
"That Congress shall not establish a religion, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to his conscience."
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
" Congress shall make no law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society."
"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience."
The final Senate version was, "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
A joint committee of both the House and Senate then finalized the wording of this part of the First Amendment as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was finally ratified by the states. This was a declaration of what the Federal Government could not do, leaving the states free within the control of their own constitutions.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 21:35:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doomar
As one follows the progression of wording in the multiple drafts, it is clear that the meaning is closer to the final Senate version, "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." |
Yes, and?| This was a declaration of what the Federal Government could not do, leaving the states free within the control of their own constitutions. |
And then the 14th Amendment came along, and the states ratified it, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 06:57:40 [Permalink]
|
It's an interesting essay, but I remain unconvinced. The author writes:The most telling refutation of the entire false theory of what it means according to current judicial opinion, is a quotation of the language written in an extremely important piece of legislation, The Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance is ranked number four in importance relative to all Government documents, behind the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation.
Article III of the Northwest Ordinance reads as follows:
"Article III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary in good government, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
This statement presumes that public schools are proper and necessary to teach religion and morality which they did until this age when all hell is breaking loose because the schools and too many parents are not teaching religion and morality. |
Fine. But then in the next sentence, he writes:| The First Amendment, written in the same year as the Northwest Ordinance... |
Wait. So this notion of religion and schools was expressed in 1787. But in 1787, we had slaves. And women couldn't vote. And blood-letting was thought to be a good remedy for most illnesses.
Given that, I reject the notion that what someone really intended in a statement written in 1787 automatically applies in the modern age. I mean, these people believed in humors! Did they think that the purpose of school was, in part, for religious (read: Christian) education? Yes. But so what? They also believed it was OK to buy and sell people who would work the plantation. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 01/18/2008 06:58:39 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 08:43:05 [Permalink]
|
| I have no issues so long a Christianity gets not one second more than any other religion, we all know damn well that "religion" in this context mean Christianity. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 08:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I have no issues so long a Christianity gets not one second more than any other religion, we all know damn well that "religion" in this context mean Christianity. |
Right, BPS. I didn't address this, but it's important. Obviously people like Doomar have only thing in mind when they think of religion in schools. But I assure you (though you don't need assuring) that if Public High had students praying to Allah every day, they wouldn't stand for it. Indeed, it's almost certain that certain Protestant groups would be just as pissed if a Catholic Mass or some such were performed. The far right theocrats want religion in school, but only their religion. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
1st Clause of 1st Amendment
