God's Work

It is clear to me that Jarod has no clue what was in Jefferson’s mind when he wrote the words Jarod wishes to cling to as proof there would be this WALL of separation thus requiring the removal of any religious content from the State. But as evidenced by the many religious references in the Capitol, our monuments and the Supreme Court itself, there is no such wall nor was it intended to be a wall.

'A Wall of Separation'
FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft

By JAMES HUTSON

Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." With the help of the FBI, the draft of the letter, including Jefferson's obliterated words, are now known.

Thomas Jefferson's reply on Jan. 1, 1802, to an address from the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, congratulating him upon his election as president, contains a phrase that is as familiar in today's political and judicial circles as the lyrics of a hit tune: "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain (many would say, distort) the "religion clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...," a clause whose meaning has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past 50 years.

During his lifetime, Jefferson could not have predicted that the language in his Danbury Baptist letter would have endured as long as some of his other arresting phrases. The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson wrote it and then was more or less forgotten for half a century. It was put back into circulation in an edition of Jefferson's writings, published in 1853, and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: "despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation."


Version of the letter:

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Draft and Recently Discovered Text

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 & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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 and 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 eternal 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,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights 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 & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
 
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.

This, again, is a dishonest version of our debate. But when it comes to dishonest dialogue and trolling threads with off topic nonsense, you have no peer.

Carry on dunce.
 
You said... "It says NOTHING about a SEPARATION you morons." indicating that anyone who thought the "Establishment Clause"/"Separation Clause" said anything about Separation was a moron.

Right?

Is that what it says Jarod? I am pretty sure I am calling you morons for referring to it is a "separation clause" and not the "establishment clause."

But alas, you are a dishonest dunce of epic proportions who likes to fabricate you own version of reality and build those strawmen claims no one has made to argue against.
 
For me it all boils down to what's the point? The comments didn't even hit our consciousness until two years afterward, then the WH went into overdrive to deny them.

What did the Pal leaders have to gain by relating the comments or as you might say, making them up?

There may not have been a point. They may have simply misinterpreted what Bush was saying. I don't pretend to understand other motives they may or may not have had. Regardless... it is hearsay. To pretend he definitely said it is absurd... though I again agree it is certainly plausible given his past.
 
This, again, is a dishonest version of our debate. But when it comes to dishonest dialogue and trolling threads with off topic nonsense, you have no peer.

Carry on dunce.


Ah, poor TD, lost a debate by calling one of our founding fathers own words moronic. Sorry your so butt hurt.
 
I posted Thomas Jefferson's own words, and TD called the argument moronic when he thought I wrote them...

Epic!
 
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?

This was Truth Detector's response when I typed Thomas Jeffersons words without attributing them to Thomas Jefferson, when TD though they were my words.

ROTFLMAO
 
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
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.

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.

claims and arguments you have about the “establishment clause” is hardly limited to the metaphor used by Jefferson....(which was actually used over a hundred years before by some
cleric), in even more poetic language....this fact stands.......

There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution
 
claims and arguments you have about the “establishment clause” is hardly limited to the metaphor used by Jefferson....(which was actually used over a hundred years before by some
cleric), in even more poetic language....this fact stands.......

There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution

Its semantics, when someone says the "Separation Clause", I know what they are saying.
 
Ah, poor TD, lost a debate by calling one of our founding fathers own words moronic. Sorry your so butt hurt.

Wrong again shit-for-brains; I didn't lose the debate. You refused to admit you’re painfully stupid even when confronted by all the facts. Placing yourself on the same level as Thomas Jefferson is an incredible level of misplaced arrogance almost as epic as your dishonesty.

Butt hurt? Where do you come up with that nonsense; I am pointing at you and laughing dunce.
 
claims and arguments you have about the “establishment clause” is hardly limited to the metaphor used by Jefferson....(which was actually used over a hundred years before by some
cleric), in even more poetic language....this fact stands.......

There is no "separation clause" in the Constitution

There's no getting through to idiots like Jarod; he laughably thinks he has won an argument while merely removing any doubt what an arrogant dunce he is.

He's a dunce stuck on a metaphor by a man he cannot begin to comprehend and a Constitution he cannot begin to understand.

But it is funny watching him put himself on the same level as Thomas Jefferson.
 
Saw your sig, TD


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by maineman

still running away from Pew, Gallup, and Rasmussen, I see. Fucking coward. Hell, you don't even deserve to lick the dogshit off MY boots, you little pussy.

Did you ever find out why this pinhead is walking around stepping in dogshit ?
maybe.....
They've been eating Obamashit for so long maybe its all starting to appeal to them...
 
Obama could have been talking about one of a few scriptures in the Bible. He is a Christian you know, Fox News just painted him as a Muslim because of his middle name and the small brains followed like the sheeple they are. I don't believe in the current proposal for government healthcare, but on this topic, here is probably what he was talking about;

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.


I could name more, but I'm done. I'll name one that has irony to this post though;

A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge. <--------------------------------------:whoa:

Is the current healthcare plan the work of god? I don't know. I DO know that god works through people and the people made it happen..
 
God has no place in politics or the work of government officials. If they think they are dong Gods work that is fine, but to use Gods name to promote or push a political plan or agenda is shameful, in my opinion.

Big G or little g, it does not matter.
Secularism has no place, anywhere. It turns people into self adoring assholes... like you.
 
LMAO... do you ever tire of being an apologist?

Let me guess... you will refuse to refute any of the statements I made?

I won't!


You made this statement:

The underserved are not being served by this mess.

This is an irrational blanket statement that doesn't take into consideration the various levels of income of the "underserved" in this country. There are many people who have not been able to afford healthcare but were working and are now able to afford it, those who were kicked off of their health care because of pre-existing conditions are now being served and those who are able to get the government subsidies are going to be served. There are still a block of worthy poor who are going to be left without health care insurance because they are not able to even afford a minimal payment. But your blanket statement as it reads is false.

You made this statement:

People are getting kicked off plans.

This is not true, what is happening is that the plans are being discontinued because they were nothing but insurance fraud and such plans that offer noting of value and appear to the ill advised consumer to be worth something when they in fact are nothing more than fraud are being regulated away. The people are not getting kicked off the plans are being eliminated because they were nothing but confidence plans.

You made this statement:

Small businesses and their employees are seeing increasing premiums thanks to this plan.

Since small businesses are not covered by this plan, small businesses were exempted from this plan therefore there is no impact whatsoever on small businesses that can be attributed to this plan. And premium increases are a result of the impacts of market place and insurance company greed. In fact premiums increases less this year than in many previous years. In other words, this too is without support and has no basis in fact.

You made this statement:

He is going to end up putting more people off of their health care plans than he is putting on his precious Obama care nightmare.

This is easy to refute: "He" isn't putting any people on anything, the people are signing up of their own free will.

What else you got?
 
This is not true, what is happening is that the plans are being discontinued because they were nothing but insurance fraud and such plans that offer noting of value and appear to the ill advised consumer to be worth something when they in fact are nothing more than fraud are being regulated away. The people are not getting kicked off the plans are being eliminated because they were nothing but confidence plans.
what fucking bullshit.......I know its true, because that is what happened to me......my BC/BS plan was not discontinued because it had nothing of value to offer.......it offered me the same protection I have now, except it didn't cover dental care for my children under 21 (which I don't have) and it didn't cover maternity costs for my 61 year old wife......in short, it didn't meet the minimum requirements of Obamacare........but then it only cost half as much, but that's another story.....
 
Back
Top