The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub 4th of July

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/04/davis.jefferson.other.words/

Some things are worth reading. This is one of them.

I'm not going to argue with anything he said, but, like most other folks making his point, he fails to point out that the case he is making is for the government (federal only) not interfering with religion. He doesn't even mention that several state governments had established religions well after the constitution was ratified. This was possible because the founders believed that local/state government, i.e. the people, is where the authority to make decisions should lie. Therefore, if a state wanted to vote to support a particular religion, that was/is perfectly ok by the constitution.

I'm not advocating for anything in particular except that when someone claims to be an historical authority and doesn't present the entire history, its worth pointing out his failure and potential motive for that failure so that people can make informed decisions.

Erm, the article makes several mentions of discrepancies between religious laws across States... but Jefferson himself was in fact, clearly , incontestably, in favor of pure secularism when it came to gov't at any level.

separation between church and state
it is true these words do not appear in any early national document. What may be Jefferson's second most-quoted phrase is found instead in a letter he sent to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He wrote both guess which one is in the Bill of Rights.

Everything covered in the Bill of Rights is considered inviolable, even at the State level due to the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld this as well.

Below is a quote most pertinent, reflecting the Virginia legislation he sponsored and considered one of his greatest achievements. Which is one of the reasons ( combined with the Mass. Quaker reference) I did not think the article particularly skimped on the States aspect in order to be manipulative by omission.

------------------------------------------------
As president, Jefferson was voicing an idea that was fundamental to his view of religion and government, expressed most significantly in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he drafted in 1777.

Revised by James Madison and passed by Virginia's legislature in January 1786, the bill stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened (sic) in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ..."

It was this simple -- government could not dictate how to pray, or that you cannot pray, or that you must pray.

Jefferson regarded this law so highly that he had his authorship of the statute made part of his epitaph, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (Being president wasn't worth a mention.)

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This little line is the one most people tend to ignore.

The idea that any reference to god or gods is prohibited any where,near.above or under a government building is the law is an outright lie.
The Bill of Rights prohibit government from forming its own religion, not wiping out like so many seem to be trying.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/06/30/lawmaker-wants-va-investigated-over-anti-christian-rules/

Yes I went with FOX news.
This is random liberals trying to make their own laws because they don't like something and they have in their own mind power to do it.

Noone was implying that references to God were prohibited. Just reiterating that the USA is not a Christian country, it is a secular one. I will agree that attempting to stifle Christian public expression is not a good thing, but in regards to this conversation that is a "straw man" as I certainly, and the writer of that piece also were not condoning that type of action.

Some prominent speakers and politicians have been ignoring that fact that the USA was founded on secularism as of late, setting an extremely dangerous tone and precedent. The tone being set is one that needs to be confronted and challenged if we wish to maintain liberty.

Honestly, the problem that you and I both refer to are two sides of one coin. The coin itself, metaphorically speaking, refers to the body of people who in fact do not see the bigger picture in regards to the role of gov't preserving Liberty for all; but rather religious partisans of various stripes. For the purpose of this discussion, I consider Atheism a religion - a belief that there is no God is still a belief regarding God and Conscience.

What this article is about, is the bigger picture, the lasting truths regarding the founding and intent of this nation. I think it is something worth remembering the next time a politico spouts off their ideas on how best to shape society according to their deeply held religious beliefs.

bloody Colonials

Still sucking the Queen's teat Instrument?

My point is that his whole argument runs around separation of church and state, which is not in the constitution. The problem with that is most people believe it is and have had court rulings like it was part of the constitution.
I myself am more of a constitutionist then a rep or dem or libertarian.
I believe in the constitution and that it is not a "living document" that people like to call it.

But, it is in the constitution. "Congress can make no law" - and by extension via the 10th amendment, neither can anyone else. The Jefferson , Washington, etc, letters are used and referenced because they clearly eradicate any doubt as to what the intent was when writing the actual verbage of the Constitution.

I cant begin to fathom how you are coming to your line of thought. By your argument, no first amendment rights are sacrosanct, and State can abridge them at any time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is all win lol