These are Preambles and other sections of 50 of 50 state constitutions.What can YOU learn from them?
(Words in red emphasies are mine):
Alabama 1901, Preamble: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...
Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...
Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...
Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1845, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble: We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance, establish this Constitution
Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...
Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...
Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government...
Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution...
Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble: We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy...
Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction...
Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe...in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...
Michigan 1908, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution...
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings...
Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...
Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...
Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution...
Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.: Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience...
New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...
New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...
New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings...
North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble: We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this...
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2.: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance...
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, establish this...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.: That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God...
Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution...
Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI: ...Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...
Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
22 comments:
Unfortunately you are preaching to the Choir
As a choir director, I do that a lot.
FABULOUS post...what a great idea to put those lines in red.
Sadly, VofR is right..preaching to the choir.
Oh, Joe...what else can we do, right?
Z: Actually, there are non-choir members who read my posts. Sometimes they get mad enough to start an argument with me (to no avail). They will read this, turn red themselves, but will have no retort in the very face of what actually is.
The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention God.
Our laws are based on the Constitution.
And individual states' constitutions were written at a time when it was popular and acceptable to write the Almighty into their individual constitutions.
However, the US Constitution supersedes the states' constitutions--that is, the individual states cannot be in violation of what is set out in the Constitution.
We nonbelieving liberals have no problems with the God language in the individuals states' preamble to their constitutions.
Those preambles thank their god. Fine.
There is nothing you have shown that makes religious law the law of any individual state. Because that would be unConstitutional.
Our Founding Fathers were very smart to say in the US Constitution "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union..."
There's no invocation of any god in our US Constitution preamble.
@ Joe. Great post!
@ Shaw. Oops, you've missed the point again. You commented that "the Constitution of the United States of America does not mention God."
In fact, you don't have to read beyond the first paragraph of the Constitution before you come to the phrase, "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." In the New World and the Old, "Blessings," were (as they still are) recognized by definition as flowing from God, which was clearly set out in the Declaration of Independence in several places, most notably when the Founders agreed that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The idea that it is the duty of Christian believers to defend God's Blessings of liberty
had been well established in practice and in local law in Protestant New England for about 100 years prior to the Revolution. In fact, individual church congregations formed their own armed militias to defend these rights long before political independence from England was conceived.
To satisfy yourself whether my argument is correct, you might try reading original texts of sermons preached in the colonies in the 100 years before the Revolution, and some of the British parliamentary debate regarding the colonies as the idea of revolution was taking hold.
You are, after all, entitled to your own opinions, but not, as they say, to your own facts.
SK: "And individual states' constitutions were written at a time when it was popular and acceptable to write the Almighty into their individual constitutions."
1959? (Hawaii)
1956? (Alaska)
1921? (Louisiana)
1908? (Michigan)
"However, the US Constitution supersedes the states' constitutions--that is, the individual states cannot be in violation of what is set out in the Constitution."
To what violation are you referring?
Is it your contention that since the US Constitution does not specifically and directly mention the word, "God," that the states cannot therefore recognize Him?
To the contrary, the US Constitution's Tenth Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Liberals don't like that amendment very much.
Do you?
Neither the US Constitution nor the 50 state Constitutions REQUIRE you to believe, but MY POINT IS: they all recognize God, and since the states make up the US, it can be properly pointed out that America is a Godly nation.
You are powerless to refute that...it's in black and white print.
QR,
The fact is that God is not mentioned in the US Constitution.
That is NOT an opinion.
Our laws are secular. I don't know how much clearer I can be. If the Founding Fathers wanted "blessings" to mean coming from God, why didn't they simply write: "...and secure GOD'S blessings of Liberty..."?
The fact is they left out any reference to God and did so for good reason.
And among the definitions of "blessings" there are also secular meanings.
SK: "However, the US Constitution supersedes the states' constitutions--that is, the individual states cannot be in violation of what is set out in the Constitution."
JOE: "To what violation are you referring?"
I refer to the fact that a state, say, Virginia, for example, cannot pass a law or enforce one in its constitution that bars a black woman and a white man from being married. The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. If a state, like Virginia, contravenes that, then the SCOTUS will find it unConstitutional and strike it down. That's what I mean.
JOE: "Is it your contention that since the US Constitution does not specifically and directly mention the word, "God," that the states cannot therefore recognize Him?"
Can you point out exactly where I imply that? That thought came from YOU, not me. I challenge you to find it anywhere in what I wrote. It isn't even implied in anything I wrote. You make a huge leap in conclusions that because I said the US Const. does not mention God, that the states cannot.
This is what I actually wrote:
"We nonbelieving liberals have no problems with the God language in the individuals states' preamble to their constitutions.
Those preambles thank their god. Fine."
Your assumption that I mean to say states cannot recognize God is not a logical conclusion to what I wrote, Joe, and anyone reading the words I actually wrote, knows that.
You're trying to make me out to be anti something, when I am not. I merely point out the fact that the US Constitution is a secular document.
JOE:"...but MY POINT IS: they all recognize God, and since the states make up the US, it can be properly pointed out that America is a Godly nation.
You are powerless to refute that...it's in black and white print."
I understand your burning need to be right Joe, I've met many people in my life who have to prove themselves right by setting up strawman arguments like you did above.
Yes, a majority of Americans believe in God and are Christian.
But it is makes no more sense to say this nation is a "Godly" or "Christian" nation than it does to say America is a white nation, just because a majority of its citizens is white.
However, if it makes you feel superior, go ahead and think it.
SK: Did it ever occur to you that the framers didn't need to mention God in the constitution because it was assumed. All right thinking people of that time period believed in God. Many would choose to argue the finer points of religion but God was a steadfast fixture in the lives of our founders. Many states required oaths and servitude to God as a requirement of holding office.
Be bold and daring enough to read this.
"SK: Did it ever occur to you that the framers didn't need to mention God in the constitution because it was assumed."--ablur
No. That thought never occured to me because I am aware of the intelligence and clarity that was involved in writing the Constitution. James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution, was a godly man, but also very clear on keeping religion out of our secular government.
Just because you can reach back and read writings and find evidence of religion's involvement in our colonial past and early history, doesn't mean it was legal as set out in the Constitution. We also, as a country, sanctioned slavery in our colonial past, but understood its evil and finally rid ourselves of it.
This country was rather heterogeneous until the great migrations of Europeans, Asians and such came to this country. They added to the mix of religions. What the Protestants were getting away with in the past--allowing prayer and Bible readings in secular public schools would no longer be sanctioned.
Here're some quotes by Madison on the separation of church and state:
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).'
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).
It appears that you and others equate keeping religion out of public schools and public arenas with trying to eliminate religion.
That is not true. Religious people are free to worship wherever and whenever they choose. Who would stop any religious person from praying to him/herself in any place in this country? Religions have their places of worship, schools, Bible camps, revivalist meetings, etc. And yet some religious people are not satisfied with that, they wish to impose their particular brand of religion into secular institutions.
My question is why do some religious sects want this? Are they not content to have the freedom to educate their followers in their churches and homes? Why do they wish to insert themselves into the public sector? Where there are other religious people and nonbelievers?
Can you answer that?
One more thing, ablur. To be clear, I understand that many of our Founding Fathers were somewhat religious [George Washington, for example, did not have a minister by his bedside when he was dying--did not request or want one, and we know what Jefferson thought of religion--his opinion of it was not high.]
But that's not my point. Just because many of our Founding Fathers were somewhat religious, it does not follow that their religion or any religion should be favored by the State.
That's not to say that religion should not be tolerated in our lives. It only means that religion has its proper place in the private sector, not in the public.
I don't see how this injures anyone.
SK: We all agree that the framers absolutely abhored the idea of a state religion. It was just such a religion that the Pilgrim Church fled when first they went to Holland and then to Plymouth Rock.
It was NOT, however, their intent that religion be separated OUT of public life, as evidenced by their invocation of their beliefs in their very public speeches.
Sir Patrick Henry invoked God several times in his "...give me liberty or give me death!" speech.
His is only one example of literally thousands of speeches in which God is referenced as the one who would guide us through the maze of setting up this new country.
The George Washington thing about not wanting clergy at his deathbed is a long perpetuated myth that liberals love to grasp. Even were it not a myth, it would have absolutely no bearing on his belief that God guided and protected him in battle, which he espoused on more than one occasion.
As I have documented on this blog, Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs were certainly not mainstream, but he was supportive of others' religious beliefs, had his own, and invoked them publically on dozens of occasions, as evidenced in his own writing.
Contrary to popular belief, Jefferson NEVER advocated ANY legislation that would separate church from state, having believed that The Constitution recognized that people should be free to exercise their religious beliefs anywhere and everywhere, including in government forums. He did so, himself.
This "separation of church and state" thing upon which we (and especially liberals) have become fixated was NEVER conceived to have become a part of everyday life, having been referenced in a letter to the Danbury Church, not in a government document.
One of the reasons the framers gave for the formation of this land was specifically for the purpose of freedom of religion (never freedom FROM religion---not one of them ever espoused such an idea).
In the end, you are who you are and you believe what you believe and are so closed minded that nothing I or anybody else could say would change your mind...as evidenced by your having continually ignored the point of my posts and having selected one or two words that tickle your emotions and headed off in a completely obtuse direction with your supposed argument.
Our Constitution very clearly states that government is not allowed to make any law that restricts the FREE exercise of religion.
The fact that government HAS restricted religion (you can do it here, but not here...the proper place for it is only in a church, etc.) is testimony to the fact that some people think the government was erroniously established in the first place.
God help us.
@ Shaw - If you believe that you are entitled to your own facts, there isn't much that the rest of us can do about it.
Tell me how the government stops you from freely exercising your religion.
The mainstream Protestants want to invoke their God at public and governmental ceremonies. If we are not to be prohibited from our free exercise of religion in public and/or governmental places, then ALL religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Sikhism, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology, Mormonism have the right to inject their prayers into public and governmental fora.
Are you willing to allow all those religions to offer their prayers at invocations at public school ceremonies, governmental ceremonies?
If not, why not?
If you believe religion belongs in the public area, then ALL religions have to be included--including Islam. If you want Bible readings back in the public classroom, then we have to include passages from the Qua'ran as well, or from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard.
That way, the government is not favoring one religion over another, as is clearly prohibited in the Constitution.
BTW: That is NOT a myth about GWashington. I've read it in several of his bios.
Government has hardly "restricted" religion when religious references are on our money, in our Pledge, religious prayers open every session of Congress, one can find religious programming on every AM radio station, and cable station. Every villiage, town, and city has a church or synagogue, and even mosque in it. Religious educational institutions enjoy tax-free status. We are awash in religion in this country--we are THE MOST religious advanced Western democracy in the world.
Saying our government restricts religion is just plain wrong--you deliberately ignore facts when you claim this, and it is hardly a "fact" that one can encounter religion only in church as I pointed out above.
Here's a passage about Washington's death bed claim.
If you can find me evidence that this is a myth, I will be happy to read it.
"But Washington may not have been as pious as Weems suggests. While Washington regularly attended a Christian church, he would not take communion. On his deathbed, he did not request a minister to be present and asked for no prayers. Biographer Barry Schwartz reports that Washington's "practice of Christianity was limited and superficial, because he was not himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected" (Schwartz, 175).
Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.
When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."
Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia."
Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.
Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death.
"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he.
"About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"
Sources
QR,
I have no idea what you're referring to.
SK: I was personally restricted from leading a prayer at a high school football game.
I agree that all religions should be free to be represented in ANY forum they desire to be so.
Whereas "Christian" politicians take their oath of office with one hand on a Bible, at least one has done so with his hand on Koran.
That's OK with me, if it's OK with you.
Frankly, neither holds much credence with me, given how few politicians bother to keep their oaths anyway.
"Are you willing to allow all those religions to offer their prayers at invocations at public school ceremonies, governmental ceremonies?"
Yep. If that's what the ceremonial leaders want.
"If you want Bible readings back in the public classroom, then we have to include passages from the Qua'ran as well, or from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard."
No, we don't "have" to. But there would be no foul if a Scientologist were my English teacher and read from L. Ron Hubbard before class each day, just as my 10th grade English teacher did from the Bible.
I am in favor of freedom of religion...period. I'm even in favor of your freedom to be non-religious, if that is your choice.
I am against your being able to keep me from telling others (even you) about my "religion" (of which I have none, BTW).
In point of fact, I teach a course in comparative religions in my church...which is a Christian church (Baptist).
"Congress (our federal law making body) shall make no (none, nada zero) law respecting (having anything to do with) an establishment (this might considered either a verb or a noun) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Neither can Congress (our law making body) restrict speech or the press.
But they do, anyway.
SK: George Washington has become more of a myth then a man. His own diary's speak volumes of his personal struggles with religion and his personal faith that grew from these struggles. He believed that no man could fully come to terms with the greatness of God. He speaks of God often as a young surveyor, noting how well designed the world was. His preayer life became all to public to his dismay as he was often spotted on bended knee through out the entire revolutionary campaign.
Martha was often dismayed that he chose to honor God in such personal ways, that he would often refuse pastoral occasions. George was a very private man, yet much of his life was in constant scrutiny by the public. It was this one thing and it alone between him and God that he strived to keep private. After the revolutionary war his home was constantly set upon by guests seeking his counsel and keeping him pressed into public view.
Man and his God was a private matter, but there was still plenty of opportunity to call out and pray to God in public forums. Once again going through his personal diary, he recalls occasions where there was no money to pay for religious occasions that he deemed necessary for his troops. He often payed for these services from his own pocket.
God had a strong and personal relationship with GW. There was no need for a conduit for which to go and enter the kingdom of God at his death. No man could serve in that capacity. It was to be served by him alone and the faith to which he followed during his entire life. GW left this world as privately as he served God.
I have read several Bios myself and find it odd that so little of his writings and diary entries are actually used to write them. The bulk of his bios seek to expose his public service and do little to show his private moments. Often biographies are simply rehashes of other biographies and do little to examine the vast material at hand.
To your other Question:
Are you willing to allow all those religions to offer their prayers at invocations at public school ceremonies, governmental ceremonies?
If not, why not?
I believe each group should be free to decide who and how much they would accept. This should never be a law forcing any religion to be accepted or excluded. This is a personal right, or a group right. This is no place for federal authority and I believe that is clearly communicated in the first amendment.
Slavery was a key sticking point that almost destroyed our fledgling nation before it could be birthed. You will find many of our framers hated slavery. GW hated slavery but saw no alternative. The personal struggles and debates he had with himself in his diary would be very enlightening to you. As presider over the framing of this nation he knew that compromise would have to be accepted in this area so that the nation could be established. He often wished that this issue could be resolved but knew it was not the place or time. It was far better to be a united states before the world then small nations with no real bond.
We so often seem to forget that we have freedom of speech not freedom from speech.
What the Protestants were getting away with in the past--allowing prayer and Bible readings in secular public schools would no longer be sanctioned.
You chose Madison to support your argument here? Perhaps you were unaware that Madison authorized and signed bills that came through congress to help bible societies with public funds. Not just once but three times. Those would be the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Massachusetts bible societies. The quotes you use clearly fall in line with this. Some may find them contrary.
Struggling with my post. Please excuse the deletions.
To Continue.......
My question is why do some religious sects want this? Are they not content to have the freedom to educate their followers in their churches and homes? Why do they wish to insert themselves into the public sector? Where there are other religious people and nonbelievers?
Can you answer that?
If we can take a two weeks of schooling and force study of the quran, and practicing the faith of Islam to the full measure, why can't we teach Christianity or Judaism with equal fervor?
<a href="http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1937>Source</a>
<i>That's not to say that religion should not be tolerated in our lives. It only means that religion has its proper place in the private sector, not in the public.
I don't see how this injures anyone.</i>
Many religion require prayers when partaking in daily activity. By your standard these practices are not to be tolerated when in a public place. A person who is fully devoted to their faith would therefore be greatly injured by this folly. This perspective would serve the luke warm believers well. Those who had a passion to take on the full measure of what they believe would be ostracized.
The constitution was written so all could freely worship as they see fit. It was not written so all couldn't see other worship.
"That's not to say that religion should not be tolerated in our lives. It only means that religion has its proper place in the private sector, not in the public."
That was poorly phrased. What I should have written is: "That's not to say that religion should not be tolerated in our lives. It only means that religion has its proper place in homes, places of worship and other venues not supported by government taxes.
Because just as anti-abortionists dislike the idea of their tax dollars going to government financed abortions, so do people of non-Christian religions and no religion dislike dislike the idea of the government favoring religion at government financed venues. [And it is 9 times out of 10 a prayer to Jesus or the Abrahamic God.]
If we have to bow to the wishes of one, why not the other?
I have no quarrel with people of faith. My own mother was a devout Catholic. My sister converted to Methodism when she married. We have Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Uni-Unis and Jehovah Witnesses in our family [no Scientologists].
What I fail to understand is why Christians in this country seem always to be aggrieved when they have all the freedom to pursue and practice their religion everywhere else, except in government financed public schools and other taxpayer supported venues.
JOE: "I am against your being able to keep me from telling others (even you) about my "religion" (of which I have none, BTW)."
That thud you just heard was me falling off my chair and hitting the floor.
SK: What did you land on? We can only hope.
What part of my statement caused this unfortunate fall?
You said: "...religion has its proper place in homes, places of worship and other venues not supported by government taxes."
See, venues supported by government taxes has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The first amendment poses no exceptions. In fact, the fact that a federal document puts the restriction on the government suggests that the general populace has no restrictions at all.
In the early days of our country, even into the 20th century, it was common to have "street preachers" proclaiming a sectarian gospel in public parks, on public street corners and in schools and libraries.
The folks who actually framed the government had not yet learned that they had made rules against such.
Oh, wait...they never did make such rules. They are a late 20th century invention!
Perhaps it was the part about me not having any religion.
Fact is, I hate the very word, "religion," as it supposes that there is something man can do to please, draw closer to, discover or otherwise reach up to God, which is impossible.
Rather, I embrace a faith that God has reached down to man in the person of His Son, Jesus, in order for righteousness to be imputed to man through faith that the sin-debt owed God was paid by Jesus at the cross of Calvary, on which cross he was placed at the insistance of some very "religious" people.
You will insist that I am playing with words. I assure you I am not, for my very life has been spent promulgating this truth.
I hate religion...all religion. I do NOT by any means, or by any stretch of the imagination, hate people who are religious.
Neither do I wish to deprive them of their right to exercise their religion any time, any place...especially in the public square.
FANTASTIC post!!
Thank you so much for this, Joe!
Oh SK, for crying out loud! Invoking/acknowleging the name of God, giving God credit & praise for the massive, overwhelming freedom & blessings we have as a nation does NOT a Theocracy make.
However, extricating God's name from all civil discourse, even when God has heaped these myriad blessings on us does seem rather snooty & arrogant. No?
(of course, you'll argue back something about protecting the non-believers from the tyranny of big, bad humbly-praying-people. I know...it's a hard life...)
Post a Comment