God's Work

[Truth Detector]

BTW, this forum has rules for debate? Really? Where are they?

I guess I should have been clearer; I forgot that you are a dishonest troll who likes to parse, prone to obfuscation and avoiding facts.

Similar rules to a court of law; whereas, if someone makes a claim of fact, then it is incumbent on them to PROVE that their claims are actually factual. Hearsay evidence does not meet that standard.

 

[Truth Detector]

I never claimed the word Establishment is synonymous with the word Separation, did I? I claimed that the Constitution declared that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Even after typing it again, it doesn't look any less stupid than the first time you typed it.

Perhaps you are retarded in that you think that if you type the same false stupid thing enough times, it will look less stupid?

 

[Jarod]

I guess I should have been clearer; I forgot that you are a dishonest troll who likes to parse, prone to obfuscation and avoiding facts.

Similar rules to a court of law; whereas, if someone makes a claim of fact, then it is incumbent on them to PROVE that their claims are actually factual. Hearsay evidence does not meet that standard.

What standard?

 

[NOVA]

I never claimed the word Establishment is synonymous with the word Separation, did I? I claimed that the Constitution declared that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

how about "thus limiting the governments power over the freedom of the people to practice religion".....less poetic, but more accurate.

 

[Jarod]

Even after typing it again, it doesn't look any less stupid than the first time you typed it.

Perhaps you are retarded in that you think that if you type the same false stupid thing enough times, it will look less stupid?

Finally I got you... those words were not my own. Those words were Jeffersons words! Are you saying Jefferson looked stupid?

 

[NOVA]

What standard?

You didn't understand what he posted ?...the standard, "that their claims are actually factual" is what I read.

 

[Truth Detector]

For Jarod:

Almost everyone has heard of the doctrine of the "separation of church and state." In fact, this phrase is so central to the discussion of the role of religion in American society that most Americans actually believe it is in the United States Constitution itself.

But there is no such phrase in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.

So, where does that phrase come from?

Believe it or not, it comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut.

And what exactly does the Constitution say about religion and its role in public life? The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It’s plain what those words mean. The new federal government could not establish a state religion to which everyone had to belong. Each American citizen must be free to choose his own religion.

When James Madison first proposed what eventually became the First Amendment, his original wording stated that "no religion shall be established" by Congress. But that language was subsequently modified after it was pointed out that this might be construed to mean that the state had no interest in religion at all.

As George Washington noted in his Farewell Address, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports of our political prosperity," and "reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Washington’s view remained the nation’s view for one hundred and fifty years. It changed in 1947. In that year, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that under the First Amendment, neither a state nor the Federal Government could "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. "

By adding the phrase, "aid all religions," in between the ban on preferential treatment, the Court laid the groundwork for the modern "strict separation" view. And where did the majority five Justices look for support for their argument? Back to that one phrase used in one letter by Thomas Jefferson.

How ironic! The Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson authored, of course, grounded the cause of Independence in an appeal "to nature and nature’s God." It established the proposition that we have inalienable rights that are not bestowed on us by government, but are a birthright gift from our "Creator." And it concluded from those self-evident truths that government’s only legitimate purpose is to secure every citizen’s God-given inalienable rights.

Does that sound like something that was written by a man who wanted to wall off government from religious belief?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are but two of innumerable examples where our government, both federal and state, acknowledge a debt to God.

As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a noted liberal, acknowledged in the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clausen, "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

But the damage had been done. The "separation of Church and State" metaphor that the Court borrowed from Jefferson in the Everson decision has been used to remove God and religion, piece by piece, from American public life.

Are we a better society for it? Marriage, except among religious Americans, is in decline.

Birthrates, except among religious Americans, are in decline. The percentage of children born to unwed women has skyrocketed. Behavior in classrooms has deteriorated. Crime rates rose just as religion declined. Almost every cultural and ethical indicator has declined since God and religion started to be removed from American life. And all because of one sentence in one letter.

I’m John Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University for Prager University.

 

[Jarod]

how about "thus limiting the governments power over the freedom of the people to practice religion".....less poetic, but more accurate.

That phrase is covered by Separation. You see if the government is separated, it can not have power over the freedom of the people to practice religion, but additionally the Religion cannot has any power in the Government also. The second works in those two consistent ways.

 

[Jarod]

You didn't understand what he posted ?...the standard, "that their claims are actually factual" is what I read.

Well in a Court, sometimes hearsay is allowed in to prove that something is factual.

 

[Jarod]

FOR TD who continues to put both Thomas Jefferson and Me in the same category of intelligence.


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

 

[Truth Detector]

Finally I got you... those words were not my own. Those words were Jeffersons words! Are you saying Jefferson looked stupid?

I am saying your efforts to twist the meaning of those words to fit your narrow myopic view of the purpose of the ESTABLISHMENT clause are stupid.

This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

 

[Jarod]

I am saying your efforts to twist the meaning of those words to fit your narrow myopic view of the purpose of the ESTABLISHMENT claus are stupid.

This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Exactly, Separation! You are finally starting to get what Tom and I have been saying.

 

[Truth Detector]

That phrase is covered by Separation. You see if the government is separated, it can not have power over the freedom of the people to practice religion, but additionally the Religion cannot has any power in the Government also. The second works in those two consistent ways.

But there is no such phrase in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.

So, where does that phrase come from?

Believe it or not, it comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut.

And what exactly does the Constitution say about religion and its role in public life? The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It’s plain what those words mean. The new federal government could not establish a state religion to which everyone had to belong. Each American citizen must be free to choose his own religion.

 

[Jarod]

But there is no such phrase in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.

So, where does that phrase come from?

Believe it or not, it comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut.

And what exactly does the Constitution say about religion and its role in public life? The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It’s plain what those words mean. The new federal government could not establish a state religion to which everyone had to belong. Each American citizen must be free to choose his own religion.

No, they clearly intended the government and the church to be fully and completely separate. At least that's what Jefferson intended, read the entirety of his letter....

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, (not between Man, his God and the Government) that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,

 

[Truth Detector]

Exactly, Separation! You are finally starting to get what Tom and I have been saying.

Wrong; the Constitution does not say separation; no matter how many times you stupidly refer to it, it does not say that. What part of the obvious do you continue to avoid?

They start Congress with a prayer; the currency contains the words "In God We Trust"; the Capitol building in the Cox Corridor contains the words: "America! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea!"; the House Chamber contains the inscribed words "In God We Trust"; a marble relief of Moses stands in the House Chamber above the door; at the east entrance to the Senate chamber are the words "Annuit Coeptis" Latin for God has favored our undertakings; the words "In God We Trust" are also written over the southern entrance; the Capitols Chapel is a stained glass window depicting George Washington in prayer under the inscription In God We Trust. Also, a prayer is inscribed in the window which says, Preserve me, God, for in Thee do I put my trust; the east side of the capstone on the Washington Memorial has the Latin phrase "Laus Deo", which means "Praise be to God"; the cornerstone of the Washington Monument includes a Holy Bible; the Supreme Court has a number of places in its building where there are images of Moses with the Ten Commandments.

Once again I have allowed a dishonest idiot to engage in an OFF Topic debate that the idiot has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[Truth Detector]

No, they clearly intended the government and the church to be fully and completely separate. At least that's what Jefferson intended, read the entirety of his letter....

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, (not between Man, his God and the Government) that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,

No they did not as clearly stated in the Constitution and as illustrated above in the many religious displays in our Capitol. They did not believe in the Government's ESTABLISHMENT of A religion. ALL religion was to be respected thusly.

But there is no such phrase in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.

So, where does that phrase come from?

Believe it or not, it comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to a Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut.

And what exactly does the Constitution say about religion and its role in public life? The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It’s plain what those words mean. The new federal government could not establish a state religion to which everyone had to belong. Each American citizen must be free to choose his own religion.

 

[Jarod]

Wrong; the Constitution does not say separation; no matter how many times you stupidly refer to it, it does not say that. What part of the obvious do you continue to avoid?

They start Congress with a prayer; the currency contains the words "In God We Trust"; the Capitol building in the Cox Corridor contains the words: "America! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea!"; the House Chamber contains the inscribed words "In God We Trust"; a marble relief of Moses stands in the House Chamber above the door; at the east entrance to the Senate chamber are the words "Annuit Coeptis" Latin for God has favored our undertakings; the words "In God We Trust" are also written over the southern entrance; the Capitols Chapel is a stained glass window depicting George Washington in prayer under the inscription In God We Trust. Also, a prayer is inscribed in the window which says, Preserve me, God, for in Thee do I put my trust; the east side of the capstone on the Washington Memorial has the Latin phrase "Laus Deo", which means "Praise be to God"; the cornerstone of the Washington Monument includes a Holy Bible; the Supreme Court has a number of places in its building where there are images of Moses with the Ten Commandments.

Once again I have allowed a dishonest idiot to engage in an OFF Topic debate that the idiot has no clue what he is talking about.

Its okay, to someone like you I suppose when you don't understand people like Thomas Jefferson and me... we seem like morons. I understand that it must be frustrating when things don't turn out to be the way you had thought they were. Thomas Jefferson was, I am sure, and I am used to people like you not being able to understand complex issues like this.

 

[Truth Detector]

I'm simply saying that the Constitution declared that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

This is why its called the "Separation clause". The action that the clause calls for is separation, not establishment. That is why its called the separation clause.

It is NOT called the "separation clause” except by those wallowing in blissful ignorance. It IS the "establishment clause." There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution no matter how many times you claim it is.

 

[Truth Detector]

Its okay, to someone like you I suppose when you don't understand people like Thomas Jefferson and me... we seem like morons. I understand that it must be frustrating when things don't turn out to be the way you had thought they were. Thomas Jefferson was, I am sure, and I am used to people like you not being able to understand complex issues like this.

I am amused that you believe that Thomas Jefferson would have been making the same stupid claims and arguments you have about the “establishment clause”. But alas, when debating dishonest morons who don't know what is contained in the Constitution, this is par for the course.

Placing yourself on the same plane as Jefferson is an amazing level of dimwitted arrogance and the presumptive realm of the painfully stupid. You, sir, are NO Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Jarod]

I am amused that you believe that Thomas Jefferson would have been making the same stupid claims and arguments you have about the “establishment clause”. But alas, when debating dishonest morons who don't know what is contained in the Constitution, this is par for the course.

Placing yourself on the same plane as Jefferson is an amazing level of dimwitted arrogance and the presumptive realm of the painfully stupid. You, sir, are NO Thomas Jefferson.

You are the one who placed us both on the same plane, when I used his words, you called them moronic. But, like I said, I understand.