»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Speaking of the Inauguration...
| The Alley |
|
Speaking of the Inauguration... |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
When listening to the ceremonies today, I couldn't help but think of Neudeau (sp?) and how upset he must have been, having been forced to 'accept' the religious beliefs of others by having to listen to the Inaugural prayer, and thought he must have literally blown a gasget at the closing lines..."with respect to all faiths, this prayer is humbly offered in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ." So is Neudeau a Christian now, having been forced to 'accept' Jesus Christ?  All kidding aside, I thought it was a beautiful prayer. |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Hehe! I was glad to hear that prayer too, Denise!  Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Michael Neudow is the person meant. Gotta hand it to him though. Although fraught with difficulty, disdain, and failures, he keeps trying. That there is a rare trait, one that only enriches our country. Personally, I was rather engrossed with the entirety of history, trivia, and pageantry, along with anecdotal stories of past inaugurations. One thing this one had, which was a first, was a bleacher section along the parade route, and not out in BFE, just for protestors. That was refreshing to see. I did get very very nervous when President Bush and the First Lady exited the limo and walked for a bit. Of course, that tradition harkens back to President Carter who wished to project an 'in touch with the people' demeanor. |
||
|
JoshG Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127TX, USA |
Ironic that we have a "Christian" Inaugural prayer? Maybe, we can just accept that the "Seperation of Church and State" is a grossly interpreted and abused mandate. I bet you could make a list two pages long of corelation between christianity and government traditions. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
bahhh humbug...I think they should cut costs and hold the inagurational ball and dinner in a local fire house... hehe On a more serious tone...agreeing here.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. John Fitzgerald Kennedy Inaugural address, Friday, January 20, 1961 No one complained, Josh, when President Kennedy used these words. The "Bush appealing to the religious right" is just a liberal attempt to justify their loss. If one looks at past inaugural addresses by both parties, I believe you will find the same religious pledges. It has always been that way... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
it would appear even Senator Clinton is propounding her religous faith publicly. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_u se_of_faith_based_initiatives/ On the more important topic, the speech was one all Americans should hear. There are those who will attempt to denegrate the speech as is being done in the mainstream press and our friends in the foreign press, but for the majority of Americans, the speech resonates with the ideals we hope to aspire as a country. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
JoshG "Ironic that we have a "Christian" Inaugural prayer?" Ironic indeed, Josh....Madison is spinning in his grave as well as most of the founding fathers that the neocons purport to follow... Having a congressional clergy at all goes against the grain of those who set up this wonderful government, which history shows is based on the laws of nature... not organized religion...remember those founding fathers were for the most part Deist, not Theist. …"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles. … Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy. … Religious proclamations by the Executive [branch] recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root." James Madison..(Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, circa 1819 As you can see by his words here, Madison advocated that no chaplain should be appointed as clergy to congress...and in fact called for the elimination of military chaplainships and thanksgiving day prayers by the executive branch. "I bet you could make a list two pages long of correlation between Christianity and government traditions." Yes, that list is very long, but it does not have its roots in our nations founding, that false correlation has been slipped in over the years as fact, and has never been so outwardly practiced than it is today...I include Kennedy's speech quoted by Balladeer as a quite example of disrespect of our founding fathers thoughts and examples. Tim My feeling is that Hillary is politicizing, the same as Bush did all through his campaign, it worked for Bush and she is smart enough and devious enough to try to gather votes for her presidential run far in advance in this way...This might be a way of doing that, maybe not..One thing to consider, that makes this instance acceptable is that she is in a private gathering and not in a public place. ___________ice ><> |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I think they meant forcing religian upon someone. in an earlier post I made I expressed the Irony or this whole situation. Look. It was a prayer. Bush is not oprressing any one by praying at his innaggeration. To say he can't is restricting his religuos beliefs. Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"One thing to consider, that makes this instance acceptable is that she is in a private gathering and not in a public place." Ice, if you are referring to her speech it was a a fund-raiser attended by 500 people and the press to cover it so I'm not sure that qualifies as a private gathering. I have little doubt she knew her words would be reported by the press to the general public and make her message heard. I, personally, am very happy there were chaplains in Nam. The old saying of "There are no atheists in foxholes" rang very true there and they helped a lot of soldiers get through it. I don't think that's a bad thing. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think this article contains evidence of what the Founders were really thinking. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42268 |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
JuJu "Bush is not oppressing any one by praying at his inauguration. To say he can't is restricting his religious beliefs." I think it is ok, and constitutional for Bush to pray in public on his day off.. That is at his inauguration..or anywhere else. He was not trying to guide any other citizen or evangelize other members of government.. I think you are correct in saying that that would restrict his religious rights. But please read what I say below....and please give feedback... ********************************************* Balladeer Yes, it was the fund raiser dinner that Tim put up the link for...I would suspect that fund raisers are not supported by government funds in any way..at least I hope not..Of course she (Hillary) knew, or at least hoped, that her words would be reported in the media... Speaking of the "Chaplains in Nam", who were paid by tax dollars...umm that sounds like a state sanctioning of religion.. The old saying "There are no atheist in foxholes" is just that,an old saying from some previous war, and the odds are that some of those that said that denounced God afterwards because of what they saw and the hell they had to go through... As I told JUJU, Bushs praying does not seem to me as a breach of the constitution, but I believe the rantings of the Senate and house Chaplains are a direct infringement of the separation of church and state clauses... They are paid directly from the U.S. treasury for performing religious duties, as well as are Chaplains in the armed forces, V.A. hospitals and federal prisons...also paid for by tax dollars are religious publications, hymn books etc, for use by those clergymen. The Constitution gives to the federal government no power or authority to enlist or employ ministers, priests, or rabbis to hold religious services. This has been contested in the supreme court..a 1983 case (Marsh vs. Chambers) was heard and the opinion handed down was that the charge had no merit, because the issue challenged was "Historical and traditional" another case of the supreme court ignoring the constitution or at least coming up with an absurd answer to a legal question...that was a dangerous decision in my mind, and a foolish one.. I can't find the salaries of the present Senate or House Chaplain, but these are the figures I found from 1999... Senate chaplain salary (1999) $135,000 per year House chaplain (1999) $125,000 per year In my mind these salaries represent proof of state sanctioned religion, going on in the federal syastem, and are unconstitutional..Perhaps if they received no federal salary at all, and either volunteered or were paid by private donations I would think otherwise...especially if every sect was able to pray or preach in the rotunda, including atheist.. I'll shut up now....Be well..Peace to all __________ice ><> |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“The old saying "There are no atheist in foxholes" is just that,an old saying from some previous war, and the odds are that some of those that said that denounced God afterwards because of what they saw and the hell they had to go through...” “All I saw, the hell I went through, and I’m ALIVE! Curse YOU!” “This has been contested in the supreme court..a 1983 case (Marsh vs. Chambers) was heard and the opinion handed down was that the charge had no merit, because the issue challenged was "Historical and traditional" another case of the supreme court ignoring the constitution or at least coming up with an absurd answer to a legal question...that was a dangerous decision in my mind, and a foolish one..” Obviously they fail to appreciate that the constitution is an eternal alien being that came from a galaxy far far away. “ Speaking of the "Chaplains in Nam", who were paid by tax dollars...umm that sounds like a state sanctioning of religion..” Once a state sanctions killing, (anyone from the enemy to the unwanted), it just slides down hill. “As I told JUJU, Bushs praying does not seem to me as a breach of the constitution, but I believe the rantings of the Senate and house Chaplains are a direct infringement of the separation of church and state clauses...” “Senate chaplain salary (1999) $135,000 per year House chaplain (1999) $125,000 per year” It’s not ranting but glee speaking in tongues. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The old saying "There are no atheist in foxholes" is just that,an old saying from some previous war, and the odds are that some of those that said that denounced God afterwards because of what they saw and the hell they had to go through... I'll take those odds, ice, and being an old saying does not take away validity. They are paid directly from the U.S. treasury for performing religious duties, as well as are Chaplains in the armed forces, V.A. hospitals and federal prisons...also paid for by tax dollars are religious publications, hymn books etc, for use by those clergymen. Ok, just trying to follow your line of thinking,ice. You believe there should be no chaplains in the service since, as soldiers, they would be receiving pay from the government, none in the VA hospitals if they are being paid and none in the federal prisons for the same reason because you believe such actions go against the constitution? I must confess I've never thought of it that way. I wonder if the writers of the constitution had that in mind?? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " What the writers meant was that Congress could not foist upon the states a national church, nor interfere with the established state churches already in existence. (History tells us that several states did have state supported churches.) It was never meant to be interpreted as a divorcing of government, federal or state, from any acknowledgment of God or a Supreme Being. That is the 'big lie' (and that no matter how often it is repeated, it remains a lie), talked about in the article above for which I provided a link. All one has to do is read the 1789 First Amendment deliberations (also in the linked article) containing the various drafts before the final wording was settled upon, and to be acquainted with their history and times, to know what their intent was with the 'establishment clause'. The current interpretation foisted upon us over the past 50 years by activist judges, secular humanists and the ACLU is a "secularist fantasy", according to the article. And I agree. And the bottom line is that the original intent of the Framers does not even matter to the secular humanists, the activist judges and the ACLU. For even if they admitted the truth, they would just say that they know better than the Framers, they are more 'enlightened' and are the interpreters of the meaning of the Constitution to this generation of Americans, it being a "living, breathing, ever-evolving document" (another of their favorite lies). So either way, they win the argument. Or so they think. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And thereby, the classic States Rights vs Federal Rights, which was one of the great reasons for the Civil War. Note, I said one of, not the sole, reason. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Balladeer I believe that that old saying was from WW1, when foxholes still existed..."the war to end all wars" I think was another catch phrase from that era..and it does not make it invalid at all...even if we ignore the fact that war will never solve problems in the modern age and it is a creed that has outworn its usefulness...George Bush and the likes of him are far behind in this realization, and many others that misunderstand the roadmaps of peace and peacefulness...He thinks that God is on his side, I guess, and that his faith will overcome the evident truths of the world by supernatural spells. Just listen to his inauguration speeches...he is a bigger dreamer than I am.. "You believe there should be no chaplains in the service since, as soldiers, they would be receiving pay from the government" I don't "believe " that...what I am saying is that the federal pay they receive is unconstitutional... either change the law or admit you are breaking it... The best case scenario is one that is probably impossible..To have a representative clergy from every sect of religion that any soldier might adhere to...But the disagreements between Christian sects alone would add battalions of ministers to the military roster.. In my heart, I feel that military clergy is needed, but my head says it breaks the rules of the constitution... The VA hospitals and prisons are a different story...I believe that private clergy should volunteer for that duty.. as ministers of their own different faiths... "I wonder if the writers of the constitution had that in mind??" By careful study, I conclude that the actual "writers" did have that in mind...But they fought bitterly with the landed gentry that formed the first Senate and House over the issue.. ____________ice ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Denise Good morning, friend... "What the writers meant was that Congress could not foist upon the states a national church, nor interfere with the established state churches already in existence. (History tells us that several states did have state supported churches.)" Yes, and after a while most of them (the states) amended their constitutions to eliminate those sanctioned churches.. The Missouri state Constitution, states in Section 7: "No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister, or teacher thereof." *********************************************************************** "It was never meant to be interpreted as a divorcing of government, federal or state, from any acknowledgment of God or a Supreme Being. "That is the 'big lie' (and that no matter how often it is repeated, it remains a lie)..." That is one interpretation of the statement, I don't see proof that it is a lie though, neither do I see proof that it is the truth.. Apparently the supreme court thinks it is a lie...see March vs. Chambers, 1983 case above, which was settled by a 6-3 decision. "All one has to do is read the 1789 First Amendment deliberations.... containing the various drafts before the final wording was settled upon, and to be acquainted with their history and times, to know what their intent was with the 'establishment clause'. I have read the proceedings...this amendment was ratified by the senate and then signed into law by the gentry elected President (Washington)and Vice President (John Adams) I am assuming that Washington and Adams had a different idea of what the amendment meant, or what it would likely be interpreted to mean in the next 200 years... They were strictly against the mixture of any kind of religion with the federal government and adamantly spoke against the colonies having been founded on Christian principles in particular... Excerpt...Treaty of Tripoli 1796 (signed by Washington and Adams) “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.” The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, In reality he was a Deist and a Freemason, and never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.” Adams wrote: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. ("A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" John Adams- 1787) And so his idea was that the country was founded on principles of Natural law, (secular priciples) not any sort of religious law. So according to that written history, the "secularist" and "activist judges" are right in their interpretations. That the country was formed around strong secular feelings, at least in the most prominent of founding fathers..(Who were very lenient with religious people,) and as history shows, were adamant about state supported religions being invisible in their newly founded governments procedures... With respect and fond regards, I'll shut up now.. _______________ice ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Ali Yes, states rights always seem to work their way into the picture... |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That's the other check and balance which many don't think about. Yeah, there's checks and balances between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial on the Federal and State level, but also checks and balances between Federal and State. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“I believe that that old saying was from WW1, when foxholes still existed..." Then replaced by environmentally detrimental excavations |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, In reality he was a Deist and a Freemason, and never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as “It.” Excerpts from the Roanoke Times.. George Washington, in his private papers from his younger years, professed faith in Christ. In his latter years, he still attended church and stated to Delaware Indian chiefs in a speech in 1779 that they "do well to learn our arts, ways of life, in all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a great happier people than you are. Congress will do everything to assist you in this wise intention." In his 1789 declaration of Nov. 26 to be a Day of Thanksgiving, he states that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection, aid and favors." He calls God "that great glorious Being, who is the Beneficient Author of all the good that was, is and shall be...." His stepdaughter, Nelly Custis Lewis, defended his faith saying, "his writings prove he is a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray that it be seen of men. He communed with his God in secret." Of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 93 percent were Christian. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformists, two were Methodists, two were Roman Catholics. Three were Deists. This at a time when to be a member meant giving a sworn confession of faith. One of the "Deists" ("those who believe that the universe was created by a God and then abandoned by that God"), Benjamin Franklin, stated: "The longer I live, the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance?" Patrick Henry, aware that some thought he was a Deist, was "pained" at this thought, and said of being a Christian himself, "that in that is a character which I prize far above that I have or can boast." His last will and testament says regarding his family, "There is one thing more I wish I could give them and that is faith in Jesus Christ. If they had that and not one shilling, they would be rich; and if I had not given them that, and had given them all the world, they would be poor indeed". James Madison believed that religious liberty was important. Not wanting it under governmental control, he stated: "the Christian faith was solid enough doctrinally, theologically, morally and intellectually that it didn't need the support of civil government." And though basically a Unitarian, John Adams in 1816 stated that "Jesus is Benevolence personified, an example for all men." He wrote in his diary in 1756, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the bible as their only law-book ... what a Utopia; what a paradise would this region be!" In 1813, to Jefferson, he wrote that the general principles of Christianity were "the only principles in which the Fathers who achieved independence could unite." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In 1947 The U.S. Supreme Court found in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education that favoring one religion over another or promoting one over another would be a violation. Favoring all the same was not. In 1952, The U.S. Supreme Court found in the case of Zorach v. Clauson. (The "released time" program neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion. The Court noted that public facilities were not being used for the purpose of religious instruction and that "no student was forced to go to the religious classroom." Writing for the majority, Justice Douglas argued that there was "no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.") The body of the Constitution has only two references to religion. One occurs at the end: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." Those who wish to claim that the signers were creating special Christian significance by writing 1787 AD in a longer English form may do so. I believe they were merely being more formal (and conventional) in dating a document than we are nowadays. That leaves one other reference. It is simply this, the conclusion to Article VI: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, in other words, says that no one running for office has to explain or justify his religious beliefs. That's it. Period. The Concord Monitor "Although man university professors in America today claim the founding fathers were deists, it was George Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, who agreed with Benjamin Franklin’s suggestion to have prayer at the convention. Franklin said: after weeks of debate leading nowhere “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” From that day to this, Congress has opened with prayer offered by ministers. Two years later, in October 1789, Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Proclamation which began: “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." The American Daily "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invoked His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." President Abraham Lincoln Second Inaugural Address |
||
|
JoshG Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127TX, USA |
First, a big thanks to Denise and Balladeer for there research. I was glad to come and see a lot of it already done. What I have yet to see proof of is in the arguments made by Ice. We see quotations, but no source links? "Ironic indeed, Josh....Madison is spinning in his grave as well as most of the founding fathers that the neocons purport to follow..." - interesting trick, can you tell me what he is thinking right now? "I don't "believe " that...what I am saying is that the federal pay they receive is unconstitutional... either change the law or admit you are breaking it..." - i have yet to see the law where the government hiring clergy is illegal? Or the government hiring any type of religious representative is legal, unless its intent is to start a church to represent the government. I "believe" the forefathers knew exactly what they meant and its all of those that have come after that are simply mis interpreting, mis understanding and mis representing those intents. It is clear if you have read over the research done by Denise or Balladeer the intent of the constitution. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ice, I don’t see a reference to natural law as exclusionary to the concept of a Supreme Being and as evidence that the origins of our government were strictly secular. The writers of the Declaration didn’t either, where they acknowledge the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God in the first paragraph. quote: They also didn’t have a problem recognizing that we have a Creator, and that it is He who has endowed us with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and for the protection of these God-given rights, governments are instituted among men. quote: Nor did they seem to have a problem stating that they were relying on His protection in their endeavor to form a new government and declare their independence from Britain. quote: No matter their particular religious persuasions (but most were from one Christian denomination or another as Michael pointed out), they in no way even hinted that all acknowledgment of God by the government, on government property, (and now even in the public square) should be forbidden. What they were against was the establishment of a national church, imposed on the citizens against their will and conscience. They believed that the citizens were free to worship, or not worship, as they saw fit. As to the Treaty of Tripoli, below is a link to another treatment of it. http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5 quote: We weren’t founded upon the Christian Religion, we were not founded as a Theocracy, not under the eccliastical control of any religion, but we were founded upon Christian Principles, by mostly Christian people. And how about this little gem, not to change the subject. It seems history is repeating itself today, doesn’t it? The more things change the more they really stay the same? The first declared war against the U.S. after its inception as a nation was by Muslim extremists (the Pirates). quote: |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're welcome, Josh. I'm glad to pass along any information that I can find on the topic. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
