ACLU and "separation of church & state"

[Jimmyeatworld]

I use the same arguments that were employed during the period from 1774 to 1860 by prominent Christian mininsters who advocated a strict separation of church and state including Elisha Wiliams, Isaac Backus, Samuel Stillman, John Leland, Gilbert Beebe and others.

I'm sure you do, Outil.

Well, it's been different, but I'm tired of it. You've proven yourself to be nothing more than the average far left wing nut, revisionist historian. You're more interested in looking right than being right. You come in talking about the "conscience of God" and such, but then apparently find the meaning of words like "if" and "might" incomprehensible. Cherry picking history, taking things out of context, showing your ignorance when it comes to state and federal government. Pretty much everything that's in the Liberal Arguments for Dummies handbook.

Just a note: Before I headed to work on Monday, I stopped by a friends house. Their 8 year old son was there and I asked him, "If the President came on TV after something bad happened, like the hurricane in New Orleans, and at the end of his speech he said 'Keep the people of New Orleans in your prayers'... Would you think that was a command from the President, or just something he recommends?" He looked at me funny and said, "Just something he recommends."

An eight year old knows the difference.

Well, hope you enjoy going around making yourself out to look like a tool. Maybe the next message board will have more idiots on it to back you up.

I'll be on my way now.

 

[FredVonFlash]

I'm sure you do, Outil.

Outil?

Well, it's been different, but I'm tired of it. You've proven yourself to be nothing more than the average far left wing nut, revisionist historian.

What history did I revise?

Cherry picking history, taking things out of context, showing your ignorance when it comes to state and federal government.

What cherry picking? What out of context?

Just a note: Before I headed to work on Monday, I stopped by a friends house. Their 8 year old son was there and I asked him, "If the President came on TV after something bad happened, like the hurricane in New Orleans, and at the end of his speech he said 'Keep the people of New Orleans in your prayers'... Would you think that was a command from the President, or just something he recommends?" He looked at me funny and said, "Just something he recommends." An eight year old knows the difference.

If he prays because the President asked him to, his prayers go to the Devil. Christian pray according to the dictates of Christ. Those who pray according to the dictates of the government are not Christians.

Here is something you find of interest. Samuel Stillman was one of the men who gave legal effect to the U. S. Constitution as one of the delegates to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention of 1788. Judging from this excerpt from an essay he wrote in 1779 he was in favor of a strict separation of church and state .

TO ATTEMPT TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE THINGS THAT BELONG TO CAESAR, AND THOSE THINGS THAT BELONG TO GOD by Samuel Stillman​

To this inquiry I am naturally led by the text: --- Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. It is most evident in this passage, that there are some things which Caesar, or the magistrate, cannot of right demand, nor the people yield. The address has its limits. To determine what these are, was never more necessary to the people of these United States than it is at present. We are engaged in a most important contest; not for power, but freedom. We mean not to change our masters, but to secure to ourselves, and to generations yet unborn, the perpetual enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, in their fullest extent.

It becomes us, therefore, to settle this most weighty matter in our different forms of government, in such a manner, that no occasion may be left in future for the violation of the all-important rights of conscience.

"I esteem it," says the justly-celebrated Mr. Locke, "above all things, necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and on the other side a care of the commonwealth.

"The commonwealth seems to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests

"Civil interests I call life, liberty, and health, and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

"Now, that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, are bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem to me abundantly to demonstrate:

"First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate any more than to other men. It is not committed to him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion. Nor can any such power be invested in the magistrate by the consent of the people; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation, as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing.

"In the second place. The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to any thing by outward force.

"In the third place, the care of the salvation of men's souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because, though the rigor of laws and the force of penalties were capable to convince and change men's minds, yet would not that help at all to the salvation of their souls; for, there being but one truth, one way to heaven, what hope is there that more men would be led into it if they had no other rule to follow but the religion of the court, and were put under the necessity to quit the light of their own reason, to oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and blindly resign up themselves to the will of their governors, and to the religion which either ignorance, ambition, or superstition had chanced to establish in the countries where they were born? In the variety and contradiction of opinions in religion, wherein the princes of the world are as much divided as in their secular interests, the narrow way would be much straitened, one country alone would be in the right, and all the rest of the world put under an obligation of following their princes in the ways that lead to destruction. And what heightens the absurdity, and very ill suits the notion of a Deity, men would owe their eternal happiness or misery to the places of their nativity.

"These considerations, to omit many others that might have been urged to the same purpose, seem to me sufficient to conclude that all the power of civil government relates only to men's civil interests, is confined to the care of the things of this world, and hath nothing to do with the world to come."

These sentiments, I humbly conceive, do honor to their author, and discover a true greatness and liberality of mind, and are calculated properly to limit the power of civil rulers, and to secure to every man the inestimable right of private judgment.

They are also perfectly agreeable to a fundamental principle of government, which we universally admit. We say, That the power of the civil magistrate is derived from the people. If so, it follows, that he can neither have more, nor any other kind of power, than they had to give.

The power which the people commit into the hands of the magistrate is wholly confined to the things of this world. Other power than this they have not. They have not the least authority over the consciences of one another, nor over their own consciences so as to alienate them or subject them to the control of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, in which every man ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind, and to follow its dictates at all hazards, because he is to account for himself at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Seeing, then, that the people have no power that they can commit into the hands of the magistrate but that which relates to the good of civil society, it follows that the magistrate can have no other, because he derives his authority from the people. Such as the power of the people is, such must be the power of the magistrate.

To these observations I beg leave to add, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. By his kingdom we mean his church, which is altogether spiritual. Its origin, government and preservation are entirely of Him who hath upon his vesture and upon his thigh written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF
LORDS.

The doctrines that we are to believe, the duties that we are to perform, the officers who are to serve in this kingdom, and the laws by which all its subjects are to be governed, we become acquainted with by the oracles of God, which are the Christian's infallible directory; to which he is bound to yield obedience, at the risk of his reputation and life.

They who enter into this kingdom do it voluntarily, with a design of promoting their spiritual interests. Civil affairs they resign to the care of the magistrate, but the salvation of their souls they seek in the kingdom of Christ.

This kingdom does not in any respect interfere with civil government, but rather tends to promote its peace and happiness; because its subjects are taught to obey the magistracy, and to lead peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and honesty.

The subjects of the kingdom of Christ claim no exemption from the just authority of the magistrate, by virtue of their relation to it. Rather they yield a ready and cheerful obedience, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. And should any of them violate the laws of the state, they are to be punished as other men.

They exercise no secular power, they inflict no temporal penalties upon the persons of one another. All their punishments are spiritual. Their weapons are not carnal, but mighty through God. They use no other force than that of reason and argument, to reclaim delinquents; nor are such persons to be punished for continuing incorrigible, in any other way than by rebuke, or exclusion.

They pretend not to exercise their spiritual authority over any persons, who have not joined themselves to them of their own accord. "What have I to do," says Paul, "to judge them also who are without? do ye not judge them who are within?"

The subjects of this kingdom are bound by no laws in matters of religion, but such as they receive from Christ, who is the only lawgiver and head of his church. All human laws in this respect are inadmissible, as being unnecessary, and as implying a gross reflection on our Lord Jesus Christ, as though he was either unable, or unwilling to provide for his own interest in the world. Nor will he stand by, an idle spectator, of the many encroachments that have been made on his sacred prerogative by the powers of the world.

Should the most dignified civil ruler become a member of his church, or a subject of his spiritual kingdom, he cannot carry the least degree of his civil power into it. In the church he is, as any other member of it, entitled to the same spiritual privileges, and bound by the same laws. The authority he has derived from the state, can by no means be extended to the kingdom of Christ, because Christ is the only source of that power, that is to be exercised in it.

It may be said, that religion is of importance to the good of civil society; therefore the magistrate ought to encourage it under this idea.

It is readily acknowledged that the intrinsic excellence and beneficial effects of true religion are such that every man who is favored with the Christian revelation ought to befriend it. It has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. And there are many ways in which the civil magistrate may encourage religion, in a perfect agreement with the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and the rights of conscience.

As a man, he is personally interested in it. His everlasting salvation is at stake. Therefore he should search the Scriptures for himself, and follow them wherever they lead him. This right he hath in common with every other citizen.

As the head of a family, he should act as a priest in his own house, by endeavoring to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

As a magistrate, he should be as a nursing father to the church of Christ, by protecting all the peaceable members of it from injury on account of religion; and by securing to them the uninterrupted enjoyment of equal religious liberty. The authority by which he acts he derives alike from all the people; consequently he should exercise that authority equally for the benefit of all, without any respect to their different religious principles. They have an undoubted right to demand it.

Union in the state is of absolute necessity to its happiness. This the magistrate will study to promote. And this he may reasonably expect upon the plan proposed, of a just and equal treatment of all the citizens.

For though Christians may contend amongst themselves about their religious differences, they will all unite to promote the good of the community, because it is their interest, so long as they enjoy the blessings of a free and equal administration of government.

On the other hand, if the magistrate destroys the equality of the subjects of the state on account of religion, he violates a fundamental principle of a free government, establishes separate interests in it, and lays a foundation for disaffection to rulers and endless quarrels among the people.

Happy are the inhabitants of that commonwealth, in which every man sits under his vine and fig-tree, having none to make him afraid; in which all are protected but none established. Permit me, on this occasion, to introduce the words of the Rev. Dr. Chauncey, whose age and experience add weight to his sentiments. "We are," says this gentleman, "in principle against all civil establishments in religion. We desire not, and suppose we have no right to desire, the interposition of the state to establish our sentiments in religion, or the manner in which we would express them. It does not, indeed, appear to us, that God has intrusted the state with a right to make religious establishments." And after observing that if one state has this right, all states have the same right, he adds: "And as they must severally be supposed to exert this authority in establishments conformable to their own sentiments in religion, what can the consequence be, but infinite damage to the cause of God and true religion? And such, in fact, has been the consequence of these establishments in all ages and in all places. What absurdities in sentiment, and ridiculous follies, not to say gross immoralities in practice, have not been established by the civil power, in some or other of the nations of the world?"

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/duty_of_magistrates.htm

 

[rtwngAvngr]

SO you still don't get the difference between a request and a command? Are you brain damaged, fred?

 

[Said1]

If he prays because the President asked him to, his prayers go to the Devil. Christian pray according to the dictates of Christ. Those who pray according to the dictates of the government are not Christians.

This is without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Ever. And I live in Canada, where universal secularism is the flavour du jour, every jour. I don't care what nonesense you post in response to this, you really have no idea.

 

[Hobbit]

You know, a star is one of the Muslim religious symbols, so I demand that all stars, and moons while we're at it, be removed from all government property. A fish is one of the Christian symbols, so I now deem seafood places, trout farms, and natural bodies of water offensive and therefore can't recieve any government endorsement. Jesus once talked about faith "like a mustard seed," so we should stop serving mustard in any public building.

See what kind of crap this leads to? Tell me how any of the above is different from banning candy canes because somebody wrote something religious about it once, banning the colors red and green during December, or removing a cross from a county seal.

 

[FredVonFlash]

This is without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Ever. And I live in Canada, where universal secularism is the flavour du jour, every jour. I don't care what nonesense you post in response to this, you really have no idea.

God and God alone rules the conscience of man.

FVR

 

[FredVonFlash]

You know, a star is one of the Muslim religious symbols, so I demand that all stars, and moons while we're at it, be removed from all government property. A fish is one of the Christian symbols, so I now deem seafood places, trout farms, and natural bodies of water offensive and therefore can't recieve any government endorsement. Jesus once talked about faith "like a mustard seed," so we should stop serving mustard in any public building.

See what kind of crap this leads to? Tell me how any of the above is different from banning candy canes because somebody wrote something religious about it once, banning the colors red and green during December, or removing a cross from a county seal.

If the stars, moons, fish, and mustard were intended to be government advice regarding matters of religon, you would have a case of civil intrustion into matters of religon.

The baning of the colors is a Bill O'Riley myth; and show me where a court issued an opinion banning candy canes or removing a cross from a county seal.

FVF

 

[Said1]

God and God alone rules the conscience of man.

FVR

And?

Still nothing but useless Socratic dialogue and misinterpretation. Doe that normally work?

 

[dilloduck]

And?

Still nothing but useless Socratic dialogue and misinterpretation. Doe that normally work?

He's reading us liberal fortune cookies maybe? :huh:

 

[CSM]

If the stars, moons, fish, and mustard were intended to be government advice regarding matters of religon, you would have a case of civil intrustion into matters of religon.

The baning of the colors is a Bill O'Riley myth; and show me where a court issued an opinion banning candy canes or removing a cross from a county seal.

FVF

You are not really a lawyer are you. Does Las Cruces, New Mexico ring a bell? Does the removal of the ten commandments from a southern courthouse ring a bell?

 

[GotZoom]

God and God alone rules the conscience of man.

FVR

And don't you think that if someone chooses to pray when someone else suggests it, that his/her conscience is speaking to them?

Using your logic, everytime a pastor or minister says, "Let us pray," then everyone in the congregation is praying to the devil.

You're weird.

 

[sitarro]

If the stars, moons, fish, and mustard were intended to be government advice regarding matters of religon, you would have a case of civil intrustion into matters of religon.

The baning of the colors is a Bill O'Riley myth; and show me where a court issued an opinion banning candy canes or removing a cross from a county seal.

FVF

I think the use of flash in your screen name is wishful thinking.......

Here is an article about the ACLU's fight to rid the Los Angeles County seal of a cross that has been in the design for 50 years.


ACLU DEMANDS REMOVAL OF CROSS FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY SEAL

By John Antczak
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:48 p.m. May 25, 2004

LOS ANGELES – The American Civil Liberties Union is demanding the removal of a tiny cross that is among historic symbols on Los Angeles County's official seal.


The seal "prominently depicts a Latin cross, a sectarian religious symbol that represents the beliefs of one segment of the county's diverse population" and is an "impermissible endorsement of Christianity" by the county government, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California said in a letter to county officials this week.

"Under clearly established law, the seal is unconstitutional," the letter said, warning that refusal to remove the cross in a "reasonable time-frame" would cause the ACLU to seek a court order.

The cross was incorporated into the seal to represent the area's settlement by Spanish missionaries who, in the 1700s, founded two of California's famous missions in what is now Los Angeles County.

"The cross on our county seal reflects these historical facts," Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich wrote back to Ramona Ripston, executive director of the local ACLU organization. "It does not mean that we are all Roman Catholics or that everyone who resides in our county is a Christian – it only reflects our historical roots."

Supervisor Don Knabe on Tuesday introduced a motion for a vote June 1 that would direct the county counsel to "begin preparations to protect and defend the county seal if such frivolous litigation is brought against the county."

The motion requires approval by three of the five members of the Board of Supervisors to pass.

The cross is in a panel with two stars above a depiction of the Hollywood Bowl. The Bowl was intended as a symbol of culture while one star represents film and the other television.

The panel is one of six around the seal's main figure, Pomona, a Roman goddess of fruits and trees representing the region's agriculture. Pomona is also the name of one of the county's earliest cities.

County spokeswoman Judy Hammond said the seal is in many of the county's 5,000 buildings, as well as on stationery, business cards, flags and many other places. Just last summer the county made a special effort to make sure the seal was widely displayed, and there was no way to put a price tag on changing it, she said.

The seal has been in use for nearly a half-century but controversy arose after the ACLU got the city of Redlands to remove a cross from its seal when two citizens there complained in February.

People read about the Redlands case and then called the ACLU about the Los Angeles County seal, said Ben Wizner, an ACLU attorney.

Wizner said the ACLU was mindful of budget pressures facing the county and was willing to be flexible about a transition period for removal of the cross from the seal. Citing precedents, Wizner said there could be no serious dispute about whether or not the seal was legal.

The ACLU did not object to the Roman goddess or the name Los Angeles, which means "the angels." Wizner said that to do so would push the issue to "extreme limits."

The issue is what a reasonable person looking at the seal would understand it to represent, he said.

The seal was designed by the late Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, father of Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn. Drawn by artist Millard Sheets, it was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 1, 1957.

The full figure of Pomona stands in the center of the seal in front of the San Gabriel Mountains, with wavy blue lines of the Pacific at her feet. She holds a sheaf of grain, an orange, a lemon, an avocado and grapes.

The seal's other symbols are: a triangle and calipers to represent industry – aerospace in particular; oil derricks; the Spanish galleon San Salvador that was sailed into San Pedro Harbor in 1542 by the explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo; and a tuna and a champion cow named Pearlette, for the once-huge fishing and dairy industries.

 

[FredVonFlash]

ACLU DEMANDS REMOVAL OF CROSS FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY SEAL

A demand by the ACLU is not a court order. I would rather go to far in keeping the government out of religion than not going far enough. A little government meddling in religion is like a little poison in your root beer. I wish the ACLU had been around in 1863 when the Counterfeit Christians were trying to put "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins.

FVF

 

[CSM]

A demand by the ACLU is not a court order. I would rather go to far in keeping the government out of religion than not going far enough. A little government meddling in religion is like a little poison in your root beer. I wish the ACLU had been around in 1863 when the Counterfeit Christians were trying to put "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins.

FVF

Interesting the way you phrase that "keeping the government out of religion" rather than "keeping religion out of government".

I take it then you are against the government taxing religious properties ( many states do) and are against government interference in the running of parochial schools. On the extremes, I can safely assume you are against the government interfering in some religion's view on multiple wives, and so on and so forth.

Am I right? (sarcasm)

From everything I have read in your posts you truly mean "keeping religion out of government."

 

[FredVonFlash]

Interesting the way you phrase that "keeping the government out of religion" rather than "keeping religion out of government". I take it then you are against the government taxing religious properties ( many states do) and are against government interference in the running of parochial schools. On the extremes, I can safely assume you are against the government interfering in some religion's view on multiple wives, and so on and so forth. Am I right? (sarcasm) From everything I have read in your posts you truly mean "keeping religion out of government."

Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator. The government should stay completely out of it.

The duty which we owe to our Creator should have no influence whatsoever on our civil laws and policies; except for the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

If government taxes were imposed to influence our duty to God it would be illegal. Same for government interference in the running of parochial schools.

Not to take multiple wives is not a divine duty owed the Creator. It is a civil duty owed to one's fellow man.

A religious duty is owed to God and God alone. It has no direct effect upon one's fellow man. Whether you believe in "one nation under God" or not is no concern of of mine; no matter which way you believe, it does not break my leg nor pick my pocket.

FVF

 

[5stringJeff]

Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator. The government should stay completely out of it.

I think just about everybody here is in complete agreement on this point: government should not interfere with religion, as per the First Amendment (free worship clause).

The duty which we owe to our Creator should have no influence whatsoever on our civil laws and policies; except for the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

This is where the contention comes in. As sitarro posted above, there are many who believe that merely having a religious symbol in a city seal violates the Establishment Clause. And the way you've worded it is also suspect. How can a person's religion have no influence on the public policies they advocate or reject?

 

[FredVonFlash]

I think just about everybody here is in complete agreement on this point: government should not interfere with religion, as per the First Amendment (free worship clause).

The right to free exercise of religon is the right to worship according to the dictates of one's conscience and convictions. There is no right to worship according to the advice of the government.

This is where the contention comes in. As sitarro posted above, there are many who believe that merely having a religious symbol in a city seal violates the Establishment Clause.

The strategy is to harass the enemy and keep him occupied before he even gets close enough to the wall of separation to do any real damage. The First U. S. Congress made the mistake of violating the pure princple and payed their Chaplains from the national taxes. They reasoned that the only injury done to the rights of conscience was sticking three million Americans with a bill of $500 per year.

That comes to not even one thousandth of a penny from each person. However, within 25 years the enemy was trying to establish a government religion over all of the ten square miles of Washington D. C. claiming that Congress had the power to do so because it had established two religions by paying their Chaplains from the national treasury.

And the way you've worded it is also suspect. How can a person's religion have no influence on the public policies they advocate or reject?

For First Amendment purposes, religion is the duty which we owe to the Creator and to no one else. Prayer is a religious duty. Whether I pray or not has no direct effect upon my fellow man.

The duty not to murder or not to perform an abortion is a civil duty owed to one's fellow man, because it directly effects my fellow man. Murder and abortion may be regulated by the government. Prayer may not.

FVF

 

[GotZoom]

No response to my last post.

Interesting.

 

[5stringJeff]

The strategy is to harass the enemy and keep him occupied before he even gets close enough to the wall of separation to do any real damage. The First U. S. Congress made the mistake of violating the pure princple and payed their Chaplains from the national taxes. They reasoned that the only injury done to the rights of conscience was sticking three million Americans with a bill of $500 per year.

That comes to not even one thousandth of a penny from each person. However, within 25 years the enemy was trying to establish a government religion over all of the ten square miles of Washington D. C. claiming that Congress had the power to do so because it had established two religions by paying their Chaplains from the national treasury.

How is paying chaplains to provide religious support to public servants a violation of the Establishment clause? And would you also ban chaplains from serving in the military?

 

[FredVonFlash]

And don't you think that if someone chooses to pray when someone else suggests it, that his/her conscience is speaking to them?

If someone's conscience is speaking to him and directing him to pray, then he does not need the government to tell him the same thing. If his conscience is not telling him to pray, then he still does not need the government to tell him to do something that only God can tell him to do.

Using your logic, everytime a pastor or minister says, "Let us pray," then everyone in the congregation is praying to the devil.

In theory, a pastor or minister is ordained by God and speaks for him on matters of religion. However, it is still the duty of every person to decide for himself who does and who does not have authority from God on religious matters.

On the Great Day of Judgment I suspect there will be no minister, preacher or government there to represent you. When God asks you why you were listening to the government's advice on religion instead of Christ's recommendations, what are you gong to say?

The government is probably not going to save your soul. Jesus might - if you follow his advice.

FVF