1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss Atheism and Agnosticism, post inspirational Atheist and Agnostic memes and quotations, ask questions of an Atheistic or Agnostic nature, and discuss your Atheist or Agnostic views on Life and the Outdoors. If you don't want to see Athesim and Agnosticism being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier beliefs or insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
Post Reply
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#1

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:37 am

I am totally unsure of where I should post this. God? Politics? I started to go with politics, but then realized: no threads in Atheism! Don't they deserve at least one thread? So here it is, move if needed.

Every year our local newspaper prints either Washington's or Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. And I always read it with amazement about the things it proclaims about the founding of our country. What it indicates about the thinking of the representatives from the states and what they would have been willing to sign in a constitution before giving some of their sovereign power to a powerful centralized government.

Considering that he(G. Washington) was the first delegate to sign the Constitution, and that he got all electoral votes for president twice(or so I’ve always heard) his thinking must have represented at least the vast majority of both politicians and the public in general. And if that s true(is it?), then is it reasonable that he would have signed a constitution that he thought would prohibit a teacher in a VA or MS or TX school from having a Bible in her desk? Or prohibiting her from leading students in prayer even if they requested such, etc etc? And remember, there were no Muslims or any non-Christian religion represented at the ratification of the constitution, though there probably were a few Jews in the population, as well as a few atheists along with many varieties of Christian.

The 1st amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.

Now considering that some(most?) of the states signing on to all of this had state churches, it seems logical to me that “respecting” , which has it’s first listed definition as “re·spect·ing
preposition 1. with reference or regard to "he began to have serious worries respecting his car" ”. then it seems to me that what the states were saying is “You, the federal government, shall make no laws at all regarding religion here in individual states. It is none of your business, so stay out of it. You may not choose one Christian denomination over another, nor may you prohibit us from doing so. None of your business!”. Virtually all of these delegates were Christian in one form or another, and to various degrees, as were most of the citizens. And I repeat, some of the sovereign states even had official state churches.

Now, somehow the 1st Amendment has morphed in modern times to mean that neither federal nor state governments can even whisper something Christian. As SC justice Hugo Black said in 1947: “The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”.

What? Do you see that? “a state can not” the judge says. Do you also see that in the text of the 1st Amendment? I don't, I only see "Congress shall pass no law". It would be 1833 - or 43 years after the 1st amendment was ratified- before Massachusetts gave up it’s official, state supported, Congregational Church. No matter what our supposedly learned SC justices might claim in 1947 and after, is it rational to believe that these sovereign(back in the day at least) states would have written up and signed a bill of rights(their rights, not the federal governments) which would prohibit them from supporting any church they want to, or would allow the feds to dictate religious matters to them? Giving the feds power to prohibit prayer or Bibles in state schools or at football games? I say no, it prohibits them(feds) from even having anything to say about the matter. It does not prohibit the states, it protects the states from the feds. I realize all of that(state sovereignty) went away in 1865, but the words still remain the same.

All of this leads to me copying Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. Since this post is already long, I will do that in the next post. Please read Washington's words from the beginning of this country.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#2

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:44 am

So our SC justices now feel that a state may not allow prayer by a teacher in a state school, etc? This is what they think the 1st amendment means? Since both houses of Congress asked George Washington to issue the 1st TG day proclamation which starts with "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will", etc etc, how is it all of these states signed a constitution which prohibited them from doing just such as that? Including "that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions....in the year of our Lord 1789", etc etc? In the year or whose Lord? Do you suppose he meant Jesus Christ? :o I'm not sure I have ever seen anything quite so unconstitutional, have you? ;)



http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir ... oclamation
Thanksgiving Proclamation
Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

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 thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#3

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:56 pm

In case I ever interest any one in the subject of governments oppressing religious rights, or actually what our founders might have been thinking back at the beginning, here's another historical gem to go along with Washington's 1st inaugural address. It is a little resolution of both houses of congress related to said inauguration.

Is it actually possible that if the men who signed the constitution, or the representatives of the states with state supported churches- intended for the federal government to dictate who can pray when, or read their Bible, or have a Bible, and wanted no mention of God or Christ by any government officials ever, that these same men would unanimously elect a president who would make a Thanksgiving resolution like the one quoted in the last post? If anyone thinks all of that actually is possible, then how about this? :

On the day of his 1st inauguration, they could not find a Bible for GW to place his hand on. Washington refused to go any further until they got one from one of the nearby churches. Once that was accomplished and the ceremony was complete, GW was accompanied by both houses of congress for worship service at the little church which still stands next to ground zero from 9/11. They all did this because they had all voted for a joint resolution to attend church with GW which is in the congressional record to this day:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... 0150%29%29
Page 24 | Page image

"In Senate, April 27.

"Resolved, That, after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice President, and the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's Chapel, to hear divine service, to be performed by the Chaplains of Congress already appointed:" Whereupon,

Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Senate in the said resolution, amended to read as followeth, to wit:

"That, after the oath shall have been administered to the President, the Vice President, and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, will accompany him to St. Paul s Chapel, to hear divine service, performed by the Chaplain of Congress."

Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.
Now, can you imagine that these folks would consider telling a teacher that they could not lead their class in prayer, have a Bible in their class room, or command an AL judge to remove the ten commandments from the court house? Or that what the 1st amendment meant to those who signed it is that no government official can even mention Jesus Christ, due to so called separation of church and state? Does that concept make any sense at all? Men who would put a resolution in the congressional record that the entire congress was going with old GW to Christian worship service, would also prohibit the religious practices in the states as our government currently does?
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#4

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:44 pm

OK, I am reduced to begging. ;) What does a guy have to do to get a comment/reply on their thread? (start an interesting thread I suppose?) Even if someone just said "hello", I wouldn't feel quite so lonely and rejected. :cry:

But really, no one has a comment or opinion on the religious beliefs of our founders, and what they actually wrote into the constitution relative to this age of prohibition of displays of Christian thought in public, especially if that pubic display has even a hint of relation to the state? And by state I especially mean literally "state" as in MS or TX.

I probably would get more response if we had more atheists here, which is why I placed this under "atheism". They would probably want to argue the point of why Wash., DC is right to ban a display of the 10 commandments in an AL court, or prohibit a teacher from displaying a Bible on her desk in TX. And they maybe could explain to me how it is that Washington and the other signers intended such as that with the 1st amendment.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#5

Post by Scott » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:35 pm

Good read. Good insight. There is so much here. I don't think it is not an interesting topic, it is a HUGE topic.

We are essentially governed by a secular group who capitulate to the whim a minority groups in the guise of being fair to all. PC has gotten totally out of control. It is disheartening and frustrating.

I see it at work. Most folks I work with are Godless, and judge those who try to have morals such as chastity and sobriety as being old fashioned and out of step with modern times. One person even told me that if churches don't change their ways and become liberal, they will disappear.

This whole thing is a hot topic for me.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#6

Post by Scott » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:39 pm

I would suggest posting under God vs atheism. Since it is in support of GOD. I think the Atheism forum is for those supporting that belief. Just a thought.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#7

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:47 pm

Hooray, a comment! Thank you Scott! :D

Yes, I did not know where to post this, decided on here because it it would be the atheists, more than anyone, who would agree fully with our government using the 1st amendment as they do now- IMO of course- to oppress religious freedom rather than protect it. IOW, to stand the 1st amendment on it's head and rather than using it to prohibit the feds from getting involved with religious practice in the states, using it to control, or even oppress, such practice in the states. A complete reversal of the meaning of words. So I thought I would give the atheists a chance to show me where I am going wrong.

2nd: the atheists had no posts or threads, and I guess I felt sorry for them. :roll:

Plus, seriously, I would like to hear from the atheists or any others about why they think the G. Washington types who came up with and signed the constitution would have signed it, considering the way it is interpreted today. Considering the words Washington said in that 1st Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, which both houses of congress asked him to come up with. In fact, I would like to hear an explanation from the current supreme court and other federal judges on how they think that the founders thought the Feds could keep a teacher in MS from praying. So different from the words of the 1st Supreme Court Chief Justice:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Jay
It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it, is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.
Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
Letter to John Murray (12 October 1816) as published in The Life of John Jay (1833) by William Jay, Vol. 2, p. 376
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#8

Post by Scott » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:50 am

I also strongly believe that many many people don't consider the opinion or intention of the founding fathers relevant any more. Just as they consider Christ out of date. They consider the founders as religious bigots that oppressed others in their service. But what they built was great. A system that allows for change. My problem is that the change is dishonest currently. They (SC) don't read the law as it is written and then force the legislature to change it, they re-invent it themselves ("this is what the law REALLY meant" or 'this is what it SHOULD have meant'). The affordable care act is the most blatant example, basically the court said we don't care what is written in the law, we will promote and protect it at all costs. The Gov't agencies make 'policy' that can charge fines, take your property, and land you in jail, but they don't have to vet those policies through a vote. I know you are focusing on 1st amendment, but I think it all ties together. When you can predict how a vote in the SC will go based on the judges politics, that is a far cry from open and honest, it is ideology driven. Even if I don't agree with a law, if it is a law, it should be followed, or changed. FWIW, my politics go libertarian, though I am a conservative Christian. But I don't want to force my views on everyone. Instead, give everyone the right to do as they please (pursue happiness) as long as it does not hurt someone else. Someone watching me pray and them being uncomfortable is unfortunate. So was my experience working in a science department at college and hearing the constant bashing of religion. Part of life. HYOH. Live And Let Live (LALL). But do it openly and honestly.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#9

Post by Scott » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:57 am

Another quick example -
We have guns, but we are by no means gun nuts. We shoot a couple times a year is all. When my 15 year old daughter read the 2nd amendment, she asked me if that was the whole thing. She could not believe it was so short to be a formal amendment. The she asked why all the arguments, it seemed pretty clear to her that it gave us the right to have guns. Unfortunately people and politicians, try to redo things to fit their agenda.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#10

Post by GregD » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:50 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: But really, no one has a comment or opinion on the religious beliefs of our founders, and what they actually wrote into the constitution relative to this age of prohibition of displays of Christian thought in public, especially if that pubic display has even a hint of relation to the state? And by state I especially mean literally "state" as in MS or TX.

I probably would get more response if we had more atheists here, which is why I placed this under "atheism". They would probably want to argue the point of why Wash., DC is right to ban a display of the 10 commandments in an AL court, or prohibit a teacher from displaying a Bible on her desk in TX. And they maybe could explain to me how it is that Washington and the other signers intended such as that with the 1st amendment.

When I visited Monticello the guide mentioned some story about Jefferson's support for Muslims. Also, it was a Jewish lawyer that is responsible for preserving Monticello; he held Jefferson in high regard because of everything Jefferson did to encourage the free practice of all religion. I don't know about the other founders, but it seems very clear that separation of church and state was very important to Jefferson.

There is no prohibition of displays of Christian thought in public by private interests. In fact there is no prohibition of displays of any religious thought in public by private interests. There is only a prohibition of religious displays by government entities that favor one religion. The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of some town in New York opening official meetings with a prayer based on the assertion by the town that all faiths had an opportunity to conduct the prayer. If some entity of the government wants to create a place for religious displays such as the Ten Commandments the Satanists will be eager to provide a statue representing their religious beliefs; exclude them and they will sue and win.

How would you feel about a public school teacher displaying on her desk a book titled, "The evils of religion and other superstitious thought"? It is unconstitutional for a public school teacher to promote religion, it is equally unconstitutional for a public school teacher to discourage religion. And from a practical perspective, it is a distraction from their responsibilities.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 717
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#11

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:33 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: But really, no one has a comment or opinion on the religious beliefs of our founders, and what they actually wrote into the constitution relative to this age of prohibition of displays of Christian thought in public, especially if that pubic display has even a hint of relation to the state? And by state I especially mean literally "state" as in MS or TX.

I probably would get more response if we had more atheists here, which is why I placed this under "atheism". They would probably want to argue the point of why Wash., DC is right to ban a display of the 10 commandments in an AL court, or prohibit a teacher from displaying a Bible on her desk in TX. And they maybe could explain to me how it is that Washington and the other signers intended such as that with the 1st amendment.

When I visited Monticello the guide mentioned some story about Jefferson's support for Muslims. Also, it was a Jewish lawyer that is responsible for preserving Monticello; he held Jefferson in high regard because of everything Jefferson did to encourage the free practice of all religion. I don't know about the other founders, but it seems very clear that separation of church and state was very important to Jefferson.

There is no prohibition of displays of Christian thought in public by private interests. In fact there is no prohibition of displays of any religious thought in public by private interests. There is only a prohibition of religious displays by government entities that favor one religion. The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of some town in New York opening official meetings with a prayer based on the assertion by the town that all faiths had an opportunity to conduct the prayer. If some entity of the government wants to create a place for religious displays such as the Ten Commandments the Satanists will be eager to provide a statue representing their religious beliefs; exclude them and they will sue and win.

How would you feel about a public school teacher displaying on her desk a book titled, "The evils of religion and other superstitious thought"? It is unconstitutional for a public school teacher to promote religion, it is equally unconstitutional for a public school teacher to discourage religion. And from a practical perspective, it is a distraction from their responsibilities.
Thx for your thoughts, GregD! As for your last question:

I might be OK with it if other teachers could display a book called "How to be saved from your sins by Jesus Christ" or maybe even just have a Bible. And I also think there are many public school teachers, depending on where you are in the country, and especially at the college level, who do indeed teach such a concept as "The evils of religion and other superstitious thought", except there is basically nobody to stop them from doing it. Certainly not our government. I would not be surprised if, at the public college level, there were even courses taught which basically have just such a title.

Now I totally disagree that it is "unconstitutional for a public school teacher to promote religion". Though I will agree that most people think that is the case, including most modern supreme court justices. But the Constitution most assuredly does not say that a public school teacher cannot promote religion. It only says that the FEDERAL government has nothing to say about all things regarding religion in the states and they must stay out of it.

The first amendment says"Congress shall pass no law respecting(first definition of respecting: regarding) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Could anything be more clear? Note who is prohibited from passing laws on this subject: congress!

The states, which had state-supported churches, would not sign the constitution and hand power over to the federal government, until first an amendment was added(As part of the Bill of Rights) which protected the states from the federal government in matters of religion. Massachusetts did not stop their state support of a particular church(congregational I believe) until about 50 years after they signed the constitution, after first insisting that the protection of the First Amendment was needed before they would sign it. It was needed to protect them from the federal government in matters of religion and other matters, not vice versa.

It wasn't until the late 1940s that liberal supreme court justices started reading into the first amendment something to be used against the states and the people by the federal government rather than something to protect the states and the people from the federal government. Somewhere around that time is when people suddenly started seeing things in the first amendment–or possibly changes required by the 14th amendment –which said that not only could Washington DC pass no law in favor of(as opposed to respecting/regarding) any religion, but neither could Mississippi or Texas etc. All of which is essentially just the opposite of how the first courts and founders viewed the first amendment. I probably already posted this, but it bears repeating what the very first chief Justice of the Supreme Court(appointed by George Washington) said regarding these matters: "It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.

Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.". Remember, this was said by the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of United States. That is a long, long way from the federal government prohibiting a teacher in TX from having a Bible on or in her desk. Today's situation is basically the reverse of the original.

Clearly there is no way such a man as Jay would have interpreted the constitution that was written during his lifetime, by the men he knew, right after he was a member of the Continental Congress, as giving the federal government the power to prevent a teacher in a state school in Mississippi or Massachusetts from having a Bible on her desk or for saying prayers with his or her students. And I see no reason to think that the vast majority of his peers Felt any different, Neither George Washington appointed him, or the various state representatives who signed the constitution. Representing their states which mostly had state-supported churches. If the Constitution had said such a thing, they never would have given up their freedoms and signed it and joined the Union.

I am not aware of Jefferson support from Muslims. Do you have any more specifics on that? I am aware of when he fought our first war with Muslims, The Barbary Pirates.(Marine Corps anthem"from the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli") And I think he might have said something in that treaty with them this seemed somewhat placating to Islam, which I think was done in order to get some of our prisoners back. Though I do not think Jefferson was really much of a Christian, and at best he was back and forth on this subject all of his life and probably one of the least Christian of all the founders, he still attended Christian services inside a church inside the White House, conducted by the paid congressional pastor, the entire time of his presidency. That's what I would call public support of the Christian religion.

When I visited Washington DC, I was amazed at all of the Christianity displayed on all of the public buildings! For instance, on the Jefferson Memorial itself:
"...I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.........................
On the memorial is a quote from Jefferson from our Declaration of Independence: ""We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator.................We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence,". It makes one wonder what the poor atheists or even Muslim (if one could be found) citizens of the day thought about even Jefferson saying things like that?
""Almighty God hath created the mind free..................."
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever"

So how is it that such quotes from one of our presidents, and the one with whom "separation of church and state" is most strongly associated can be carved in stone on public buildings in Washington DC, and yet the same constitutional laws that governs such as that also prohibit a judge in Alabama from having a display of the 10 Commandments at a court house? It truly seems irrational to me.

If you go inside the Congressional Rotunda for example, what do we see lining the hallways inside these public buildings paid for by tax dollars? Multiple references to Christianity. For example, we have a painting of"the baptism of Pocahontas". On the ceiling is a Sistine Chapel style mural of "the assumption of George Washington into heaven". And there are many other similar representations of the Christian beginnings of our country. But not a single tribute to either Muslem or atheist. By the same modern constitutional interpretation that would prohibit a teacher from praying with children inside a classroom in a state school, everything I just mentioned would or should be unconstitutional. Including one of the very first congressional resolutions, made by the representatives of the states who had just signed the constitution:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesar ... p?id=19942
"That is, while the new Constitution had established the presidency, it stipulated nothing specific about the inaugural activities. It was therefore within the authority of Congress to help direct those activities. The Senate therefore acted:

Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he – attended by the Vice-President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives – proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel to hear Divine service. 23

The House quickly approved the same resolution. 24 Once the presidential oath had been administered and the inaugural address delivered, according to official congressional records:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine Service was performed by the chaplain of Congress. 25

The service at St. Paul’s was conducted by The Right Reverend Samuel Provoost – the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who had been chosen chaplain of the Senate the week preceding the inauguration. The service was performed according to The Book of Common Prayer, and included a number of prayers taken from Psalms 144-150 as well as Scripture readings and lessons from the book of Acts, I Kings, and the Third Epistle of John. 26

– – – ◊ ◊ ◊ – – –

The very first inauguration – conducted under the watchful eye of those who had framed our government and written its Constitution – incorporated numerous religious activities and expressions. That first inauguration set the constitutional precedent for all other inaugurations; and the activities from that original inauguration that have been repeated in whole or part in every subsequent inauguration include: (1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath; (2) the religious nature of the oath and including “So help me God”; (3) inaugural prayers by the president; (4) religious content in the inaugural addresses; (5) the president calling the people to pray or acknowledge God; (6) inaugural worship services; and (7) clergy-led inaugural prayers."

https://www.google.com/search?q=inside+ ... piMUGas%3D

http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/histori ... n-pilgrims
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#12

Post by GregD » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:59 pm

I am neither a lawyer nor historian. I do not know the train of thought (which may or may not be logical) that starts at the US Constitution and ends up with current practices. In particular, I do not know - nor really do I care to know - how a constitutional prohibition on the federal government ends up being a prohibition on all government entities. But I am extraordinarily grateful that this is the current practice. I am an engineer by temperament and profession and I care most about what works; in my view this has worked particularly well. Our country is much better for it.

When you claim that the US is a Christian Nation please realize that to my ear you are calling me a second class citizen. You are highlighting one small facet in which we are different and claiming that in this regard you are somehow preferred. You are taking the first step toward a religious war. Your words are not benign regardless of what you think your intentions are. Why are you picking a fight that does not ever need to be fought?

In my view the best form of government is one which maximizes cooperation and minimizes conflict, that makes it easy for us to find reasons to be friends and hard for us to find reason to be enemies.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: 1st Official Thanksgiving Proclamation

#13

Post by GregD » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:14 am

On the example of teachers in public school classrooms, or government representatives, it is my position, and I think also the position of the US Supreme Court, that a teacher has the constitutional right to dress in accordance with their religious beliefs. So for example, this is perfectly acceptable for a school teacher, county clerk, etc., to show up to work looking like this:
Image

Similarly, if the person is a priest, the Pope, a Buddhist monk, a Sihk, or a Pastafarian, and as an expression of their religious belief routinely presents themselves in public in dress that identifies their religious belief, their dress must be accommodated to the extent practical.

My rationalization for this position, which may or may not be logical, is that a person's dress is an expression of who _they_ are and nothing more. It is not a statement that anyone else should be that same way.

So if you feel so inclined, have all of your clothes embroidered with "Jesus is my Savior" or whatever words are appropriate to express your religious conviction. Provided the words you select describe who you are and avoid telling others how they should be, I will support your right to wear them, even in your duties as a government official if you happen to be one. I suspect you would get solid support from the ACLU and many other "liberal" and "PC police" organizations as well. You probably wouldn't get support from the Freedom from Religion organization, but they would probably leave you alone.

Post Reply

Return to “Atheism and Agnosticism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest