Showing posts with label establishment clause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label establishment clause. Show all posts
July 28, 2007
Founding Fathers' Faith - more stuff
I was surfing through my first day of vacation and came across a really interesting post about a book on the Founding Fathers' faith. The post was from January so the book has been out for awhile. Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost has a mini "review" of the book, "The Faiths of the Founding Fathers" by historian David Holmes. It brings up the interesting idea that while not all of the Founders were, by any means, "Christian", none were atheistic. While the difference in type and scope of faith can be debated, there were no Founders that could be construed as atheists. While atheists may lay claim to the opinions of the founders showing that they were not "Christian", there are no quotes that can be construed as advocating atheism. It would appear that those of faith have more in common with the Founders views than those that cherry pick quotes to fit their agendas of debunking America as a nation of citizen's of faith.
September 08, 2006
From the liberal Supreme Court Justice....
....William O. Douglas, comes an opinion that I was quite surprised to be reading. This excerpt is from 343 U.S. 306 Zorach v. Clauson, decided April 28, 1952.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [p314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find 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 government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state [p314] encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find 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 government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.
September 05, 2006
Establishment Clause Bantering
Joe over at Joe's Big Blog and I have an ongoing friendly (and sometimes heated) discussion over the establishment clause in the First Amendment. He's a good friend, fellow blogger and co-worker and we love to "torture" each other over this topic. In my last post I linked to an article about Chuck Norris becoming a board member of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.
Joe commented that it would be better for "parents to directly oversee the relgious teachings of their children". This, as I replied to Joe, missed the point entirely. I'm not dumping on Joe, I think it's a great start to a passionate discussion by both sides.
The Constitutional language that states...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
...refers to the two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion (not from). The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official state religion or preferring one religion over another.
The Bible is an historical record of facts. The people and places written about are historically accurate. The Bible is also backed by writings from other secular authors as well as archeological finds that all substatiate it's accuracy.
Here is a link to an excellent page that shows the evidence that I refer to. This is a must read page if one is to understand the foundation of this disagreement. It is a lengthy and detailed page but certainly provides ample evidence.
The following excerpt is from an article on the Liberty Legal Institute's website. The quotes are from Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, attorneys for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.
Unfortunately the frantic folks at the "Asinine Communist Liberal Uber-anger" society ("ACLU" for those who read mostly MSM) who hate everything this country stands for won't be happy until all traces of religion, or references to, are eliminated from society. Somehow in their faith tradition (Liberalism - which is a religion unto itself) they have determined that all other religions are invalid and should therefore be eliminated. Sounds a bit like the current swath being burned by radical Islamo-fascists.
I just had to include some quotes below from the Founders. I'm a sucker for the folks who gave up everything to preserve their freedom.
Joe commented that it would be better for "parents to directly oversee the relgious teachings of their children". This, as I replied to Joe, missed the point entirely. I'm not dumping on Joe, I think it's a great start to a passionate discussion by both sides.
The Constitutional language that states...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
...refers to the two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion (not from). The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official state religion or preferring one religion over another.
The Bible is an historical record of facts. The people and places written about are historically accurate. The Bible is also backed by writings from other secular authors as well as archeological finds that all substatiate it's accuracy.
Here is a link to an excellent page that shows the evidence that I refer to. This is a must read page if one is to understand the foundation of this disagreement. It is a lengthy and detailed page but certainly provides ample evidence.
The following excerpt is from an article on the Liberty Legal Institute's website. The quotes are from Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, attorneys for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.
Attorneys for NCBCPS respond to Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) attack on an elective Bible course offered in public high schools across the state.
“It is ironic that a group which claims to be against censorship is now attempting to become the biggest censor in the state of Texas.”
The NCBCPS curriculum has been approved by 300 school districts in 37 states and endorsed by many of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, public officials and law professors. In the case Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities,” so long as it is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”
In addition to providing an interfaith perspective on the material, NCBCPS
curriculum is also designed to broaden perspectives and stimulate discussion and
thought.
“NCBCPS course material is designed to utilize the vast historical and cultural
insight found in the Bible,” Sasser said. “Depriving students of such important
study is totally ridiculous and contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court statement.”
Unfortunately the frantic folks at the "Asinine Communist Liberal Uber-anger" society ("ACLU" for those who read mostly MSM) who hate everything this country stands for won't be happy until all traces of religion, or references to, are eliminated from society. Somehow in their faith tradition (Liberalism - which is a religion unto itself) they have determined that all other religions are invalid and should therefore be eliminated. Sounds a bit like the current swath being burned by radical Islamo-fascists.
I just had to include some quotes below from the Founders. I'm a sucker for the folks who gave up everything to preserve their freedom.
"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed."
Patrick Henry
"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom."
Horace Greely
"I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
Thomas Jefferson
While President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C. public school board, which used the Bible as a reading text in the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)