Was it really intended for the U.S. to have a complete separation of church and state or to have a balance between the two but no specific ordinated religion? Take in mind the legislative chaplains put established by the FF.
I personally don't think there should be a complete separation, but definitely not a religious empire.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean? What would you want changed?
Why shouldn't there be a complete separation? And how do you imagine church and state working together?
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
I'm gonna betch slap the dumb outta you
...and our second President, James Madison, from his Detached Memoranda. Ahem...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Purpose of seperating "Church and State" was not in the Constitution, but in non-federal government letters written to a church, which have been used to kick the church out of everything possible.
The Truth is, keeping government and church seperate has nothing to do with theocracy, but to avoid a government run religion.
The idea that something religious cannot be allowed on public grounds or in a school or in congress is silly.
The freedom of religion allows you to practice your religion without being forced to join any other religion.
None of that has anything to do with allowing prayer in school or in congress or even to put a cross on a military grave.
...did not agree with you. It is true that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constituiton. However, to suggest that this principle does not serve to adequately describe the intent of the Establishment Clause is rather more rediculous than what you are suggesting. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States, in the decision of Reynolds v. United States (1878)...
"At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
Taken together with James Madison's comments (which I cited above), it would seem that the actual intent of the two primary authors of the First Aemendment as expressed in their own words clearly reject the interpretation you suggest.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
And yet, they weren't the only two people who had a say in the Constitution.
The reason that Madison's letter and this one to the baptists are not federal documents is because they are the opinon of two people.
Was there a danger of a theocracy? in England maybe, but there'd been a centuries long fight between the kings of Europe and the Papacy.
Nothing in the Constitution itself says that it is wrong to have a cross on a military grave or to have prayer in congress (in fact, they still do!), or to have prayer in public school (In fact, public schools started in the churches in the United States, and the bible was how children learned to read.)
While the government cannot say "You must join Religion X" or "you get an extra tax break if you are a member of Church Y," there REALLY isn't anything in there saying that a Christian or a Jew or an Atheist cannot make decisions based on their moral code as taught by each. There is nothing that prevents an atheist from telling someone why they don't think there is a god. There is nothing that prevents a christian from telling someone why they DO think there is a god.
This invention, that anything governmental must be scrubbed of anything that might be mistaken as religious is only supported by people like yourself as it benefits the belief system of the atheist.
In truth, the Founding Fathers were religious people. President George Washington had a prayer journal. Congress opened with prayer. Many had degrees in theology. (Heck, many noted scientists of old had degrees in theology, such as Newton)
The government is For, Of and By the people. As they have a freedom of religion, it has to reside in the government as well.
Acknowledgement is not establishment.
That the court case you cite has to pull from non-federal documents in order to justify its decision should serve as evidence of that. Of course, it does not.
...but this is a subject which I think warrants such a thorough vetting.
These are only two people, it is true, however since these two people are in fact the actual author of the amendment, and his mentor who was the primary advocate for the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill of Rights to begin with, primary authors of the amendment, I think it stands to reason that these two people's explanations offered specifically in response to questions regarding what they meant when they wrote the First Amendment carry a great deal of weight. In fact, I would suggest that to dismiss their opinions seems more than a little disingenuous, especially since we know for a fact that these ideas were likewise expressed directly to the body of Congress that enacted this Amendment during the debate and discussion on the floor that preceded the vote to include that Amendment in the Bill of Rights. We can see this by referring directly to the James Madison's own explicit description of what he meant when he began to draft the prohibition against religious establishments that eventually became the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution in the Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731...
"Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to wroship God in any manner contrary to their conscience...He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform...He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
In the first part of his exposition, Mr. Madison expressed the need for a prohibition against a national religion, and in the second he expressed the concern of the people that sects might seek the assistance of the government to force citizens to compel and support religious beliefs with which they did not agree. Thus, whatever the personal opinions of the various founders might have been, one cannot reasonable suggest that they did not understand the meanings that Madison intended when he wrote the First Amendment. Your interpretation here is simply not supported by the facts, my friend.
There mere fact that we are still having this debate after more than 200 years serves I think to illustrate the fact that there is ALWAYS a danger of the rise of a theocracy in ANY government. Madison himself expressed a very real concern over this question. Turing again to his Detached Memoranda...
"The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S....Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
Well, you are talking about three very different things, here. I would have no objection to a cross on a military grave, because the reasonable assumption there is that the symbol reflects the beliefs of the soldier in the grave rather than the government.
As for prayers in Congress, however, I will defer to Mr. Madison's explicit rejection of the reasoning behind that practice, also found in his Detached Memoranda...
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence."
As for public schools, their origin is not in question, nor is it particularly relevant. A school that is bought and paid for by a church may very well operate under whatever policies it wishes, but when that school become affixed to the public teat, it must by necessity drink the milk proivded to it by the State. Tax funded insitutions are obligated to conform to the Law, and in this case the Law forbids anything resembling a religious establishment, and as our Supreme Court has stated, and many times repeated...
"It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America...By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services...When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain...[T]he teacher who leads in prayer is on the public payroll, and the time she takes seems minuscule as compared with the salaries appropriated by state legislatures and Congress for chaplains to conduct prayers in the legislative halls...Yet, for me, the principle is the same, no matter how briefly the prayer is said, for, in each of the instances given, the person praying is a public official on the public payroll, performing a religious exercise in a governmental institution." (Engel v. Vitale (1962).
Indeed. However, there is a great difference between individual office holders "mak[ing] decisions based on their moral code," and an office holder using his position to extract funds from the State to advance the cause of his religion. The argument you offer would seem to suggest that the restictions imposed upon our government by the Constitution are essentially without meaning. All government officials are also private citizens. But when a public official acts in his (or her) capacity as an office holder, the Law does compel him to refrain from certain actions that would be perfectly acceptable if executed as a private citizen.
Our Supreme Court has also addressed this canard...
"The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility to religion, but of neutrality. The philosophy is that the atheist or agnostic -- the nonbeliever -- is entitled to go his own way. The philosophy is that, if government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force. The First Amendment teaches that a government neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious interests." (Engel v. Vitale (1962).
The government is requied to be neutral in the matter of religion. The only "benefit" that atheists gain from this is that they are protected from attempts to infringe upon their religious liberty by those who like you would prefer to see the State funding their personal crusades. To quote yet another of our founding fathers...
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"In truth, the Founding Fathers were religious people. President George Washington had a prayer journal. Congress opened with prayer. Many had degrees in theology. (Heck, many noted scientists of old had degrees in theology, such as Newton)"
It is true that many of the founding fathers were religious in their private lives. However, you are mistaken if you think that a personal piety would necessarily translate into a support for the interpretation you suggest. In fact, Madison himself also wrote at length on this as well in his Detached Memoranda (elaborating upon "the danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies")...
"The most notable attempt was that in Virga to establish a Genl assessment for the support of all Xn sects...When the Legislature assembled, the number of Copies & signatures prescribed displayed such an overwhelming opposition of the people, that the proposed plan of a genl assessmt was crushed under it; and advantage taken of the crisis to carry thro' the Legisl: the Bill above referred to, establishing religious liberty. In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sactity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr Jefferson dated ) The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world. This view of the subject was much enforced by the circumstance that it was espoused by some members who were particularly distinguished by their reputed piety and Christian zeal."
As you can see, even the more religious factions among the founders were hostile to the kind of intermingling of government and religion that you would seem to prefer. As for your reference to the infamous prayer journal that is often trotted out by religiously-motivated historical revisionists, I hate (not really) to inform you that this document has been dismissed by the Smithsonian as non-authentic, and it is not considered a legitimate part of George Washington's writings. If you have any doubts in this regard, please feel free to look for it in the George Washington Papers which are available for review online from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
"[I]t was proclaimed that in his youth he [Washington] composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday...Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand...Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First." (from Religous Beliefs of Our Presidents, by Franklin Steiner)
I would also have say that your implication that George Washington was in any was a pious christian to be completely unsupportable. In fact, "The Old Fox" as he was called by his contemporaries was quite evasive reagarding his personal beliefs, though he was often known to pander to a religious constituency. Thomas Jefferson wrote with some humor about Washington's skill in avoiding any admission as to his personal beliefs about religion...
"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice." ~ Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572.
Jefferson also wrote about Washington in his private journals that "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system than he did." The mentioned "system" of course, was christianity.
The famous barrister John Bell wrote in 1779 that Washington was "a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another."
Many of the day's prominent religious figures did not believe Washington to be devout in the least, either. Even the Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie (who was the rector of the church which Washington sometimes attended) stated that "Washington was a Deist", and The Rev. Abercrombie went futher in his comments, and stating in an 1833 letter that...
"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts: that as pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning."
The Rev. Bird Wilson (another prominant Episcopal leader) wrote this and delivered it as part of a sermon describing the religious beliefs of our early presidents.
"When Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the Episcopal Church. The rector, Dr. Abercrombie, told me that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was to be administered, Washington's custom was to arise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark in the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the Doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the President. Washington was heard afterwards to remark that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and he should henceforth neither trouble the Doctor or his congregation on such occasions, and ever after that, upon communion days, 'he absented himself altogether from church.'"
The Rev. Bird was a noted scholar of Washington's life. In 1831, he said in an interview with Robert Owen that...
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
He went on to say in another, later letter that...
"His behavior in church was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.... Although I was often in the company of this great man, and had the honor of often dining at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.... Within a few days of his leaving the Presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory."
When Owens (who later became a Congressman) finally published his report on his disucssions about Washington with the Rev. Bird, he said this...
"I called last evening on Dr. Wilson, as I told you I should, and I have seldom derived more pleasure from a short interview with anyone. Unless my discernment of character has been grievously at fault, I met an honest man and a sincere Christian. But you shall have the particulars. A gentleman of this city accompanied me to the Doctor's residence. We were very courteously received. I found him a tall, commanding figure, with a countenance of much benevolence, and a brow indicative of deep thought, apparently 50 years of age. I opened the interview by stating that though personally a stranger to him, I had taken the liberty of calling in consequence of having perused an interesting sermon of his, which had been reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city, and regarding which, as he probably knew, a variety of opinions prevailed. In a discussion, in which I had taken part, some of the facts as there reported had been questioned; and I wished to know from him whether the reporter had fairly given his words or not. I then read to him from a copy of the Daily Advertiser the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning, 'Washington was a man,' etc., and ending 'absented himself altogether from church.' 'I endorse,' said Dr. Wilson with emphasis, 'every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the public. Dr. Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression was -- for I well remember the very words "Sir, Washington was a Deist.""
Washington was actually quite typical of the men who served as our earlies Presidents, and in the Rev. Bird's famous 1831 sermon, he had this to say about George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, respectively...
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity...Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
Horsepuckey. Simply put, the government doesn't have any religious freedom at all. In fact, it is explicitly prohibited from any such thing. That's the whole point of the First Amendment.
Of course it is. To quote one last time from Madison's Detached Memoranda...
"Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.
Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.
The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea."
I disagree, and I think that you are really grasping at straws if you think that it is reasonable to exclude from consideration the very explanations of the men who wrote and were directly involved in the writing and passage of our Bill of Rights, and who were writing with the explicit purpose of explaining their own positions and understanding regarding those Acts.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Yup, that's the percivale I remember.
Twist.
At no point do I want congress to push my 'crusade' as you put it. I would, actually, like to know what you think my 'personal crusade' is. You infer that I have one and that I'm trying to get the government to fund it... so you must know what it is.
Once again, most of your quote are not federal documents and, therefore, hold no actual water. Congress didn't vote on and ratify Madison's writings, and Madison is not Congress. Yet you cling to his nonfederal documents like Obama says I cling to Guns and Religion.
You do quote a court case, though I wonder if 'Legislating from the Bench" has crossed your mind. "The constitution doesn't say what I want it to say, so I'll decide that it does and since I'm a judge, it'll stand." Do you believe that Judges are wrong? Do you believe that they rule incorrectly?
And, yes, I do believe there is nothing constitutionally wrong with a teacher praying while in school. Instructing her students to pray as a requirement, that would be wrong. However BANS on a teacher or coach from praying optionally? (Even if they are not leading the prayer) That's what the First Amendment is supposed to protect us FROM.
Yet those bans exist.
...who shifts to ad hominem attacks whenever he can't actually respond to the facts as presented appears to be doing fine, as well.
In this case, your "crusade" would seem to be a desire to see your religion given access to the institutions of our government.
Actually, since Madison was the author of the First Amendment, the Congress did indeed vote to ratify his writings. And, since he spent time on the floor of the Congress explaining what those writings meant prior to the vote which enacted that Amendment into our Laws, it seems quite reasonable to attribute those clearly stated intentions to the Congress as a whole. As for the relevance of those documents, they are at least as relevant as the prayer journal that you attributed to George Washinton, and I think moreso since unlike your offering the documents I cited are real.
I believe that Judges sometimes make decisions with which I (personally) disagree. However, when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, those judges have not only the obligation (and some would say luxury) of deciding what is or is not a valid interpretation of the Constitution, but they have the authority to make such declarations, if they so choose. It is certainly possible that a ruling of the Court may be "incorrect," but if it is only the officers of that institution may make such a determination. When one's interpretation of the Constituion disagrees with the High Court, that interpretation is wrong until such time as the Court changes its mind, which to be fair it sometimes does. In this case, however, there seems little chance that such a change is anywhere on the horizon.
Really? I am not aware of any such ban. Can point to an example of such a ban that has been challenged in Court and survived? If you can, I will be happy to set aside our personal differences and join you in lobbying for its immediate reversal.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
In this case, your "crusade" would seem to be a desire to see your religion given access to the institutions of our government.
Ahh, as compared to your atheistic bretheren's agenda to have God removed from anything. Gotcha.
You do know, those who built the governmental buildings put biblical references all over them... Doesn't that strike you as odd compared to your interpretation of what the founding fathers felt on the Church/Government split?
Seems to me that the Constitution and the Congress that ratified it kind of didn't agree with you as much as you'd hope.
Unless you think that the builders of the buildings that house our government were part of some christian force trying to create a theocracy to do...... well, who knows what, but I'm sure it is evil, given the evil things that christians do today.... like..... hmm...
I believe that Judges sometimes make decisions with which I (personally) disagree. However, when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, those judges have not only the obligation (and some would say luxury) of deciding what is or is not a valid interpretation of the Constitution, but they have the authority to make such declarations, if they so choose. It is certainly possible that a ruling of the Court may be "incorrect," but if it is only the officers of that institution may make such a determination. When one's interpretation of the Constituion disagrees with the High Court, that interpretation is wrong until such time as the Court changes its mind, which to be fair it sometimes does. In this case, however, there seems little chance that such a change is anywhere on the horizon.
So, "Yes, judges can be wrong."
That's at least a start. As for the rest, you are talking about the perception of correct nature, rather than ACTUALLY being correct or incorrect. I don't care what the Supreme Court says, if it is wrong I will say so. Case in Point: I predict that the Supreme Court will say that the 2nd Amendment is a right granted to each person, but that a state can apply 'reasonable' restrictions (purposely left broad).
If they come out and say "there is no individual right to keep and bear firearms" then I will call them wrong. It really doesn't matter who they are. Something means what it means. WANTING to change its meaning into something else is irrelevant. Even if it is the Supreme Court making that change.
Supreme Courts are made of people and are, therefore, subject to agendas and biased natures. We ought not hold their decisions and words as 'Gospel Truth' just because they ruled them so.
That may be Legal but that does not make them Right.
It seems oddly anti-libertarian of you to suggest that the government is "everything."
That depends. What buildings are you talking about, exactly, and what are the biblical references to which you refer?
That's an interesting proposition, but like much of what you have said here, the facts would seem to suggest otherwise.
As I said above, it depends. What builders, and what buildings are you talking about?
From a certain perspective, of course they can be. However, I stand by my previous answer, which addresses your question in a more nuanced, and less intentionally obtuse manner.
Well, we certainly know that you are willing to say things are "wrong." The real question, however, is can you support your exhortations in a rational, objective manner. So far, you have done a very poor job in that regard. I observe for instance that you have not responded to my arguments above with any fact-based rebuttals of your own. Rather than addressing the material, you have retreated (as usual) into an evasive discussion of irrelevant minutae that focus on anything other than the fact that your opinion really isn't based on a sound understanding of Early American History.
And if they did, I would join in your saying it because in THAT case there would be a significant amount of material from the time of the founders and specifically in regards to the Second Amendment that would support your position. Your position regarding the First Amendment is not so well supported.
Unfortunately, that is the "nature of the beast" which we call The Constitution. The final arbiters of the interpretation of our Constition rest their heinies on the esteemed Bench of the Supreme Court. Like it or not, their's is the "right" interpretation, whether or not we personally agree with it.
True enough, but there does come a point when you simply have to accept that the weight of precedent will eventually tip the scales so far towards one interpretation that it becomes difficult, though to be fair not impossible, to rationally justify a contrarian opinon. I would suggest than rather than expecting us to simpy accept "they're wrong" as a valid argument, you might want to attempt actually supporting your position with something just a bit more substantial.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
It seems oddly anti-libertarian of you to suggest that the government is "everything."
*yawn*
Once again, since I disagree with you, I must be a liberal. I'm afraid that I'm not one of the young kids that you're used to dealing with.
Almost a nice try.
That depends. What buildings are you talking about, exactly, and what are the biblical references to which you refer?
Oh, how about Moses and the 10 Commandments at the LIbrary of Congress, as well as on the Supreme Court building? (outside and inside)
10 Commandments is also found at the National Archives.
Adams Prayer Mantel in the White house contains a prayer.
Library of congress has a painting called "Knowledge" that says "Ignorance is the curs of God. Knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven."
In front of the US District Court building is a picture of a man worshipping at the Cross, with the 10 Commandments beside it.
On the Jefferson Memorial is a carving "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All atempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens... are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our Religion..."
When the 83rd Congress was in session, they put in a private prayer and meditation room. In this room is a stained glass window that shows President Washington in prayer with the words "Preserve me, Og God, for in Thee do I put my trust." (from Psalm 16)
There is a painting in the US Capitol of Pocahontas' baptism. (Clearly baptism is religious in nature)
Inside the Washington Monument is a sculpture that says "Under the auspices of Heaven & the precepts of Washington, Kentucky will be the last to give up the Union." (Religious reference to Heaven)
Inside the Washington monument there are bible verses carved into the walls from multiple parts of the Bible.
Of course, Lincon's second inagural speech is carved into the Lincoln Memorial, which has multiple references to God, as Lincoln was a christian man.
Back to the Library of Congress, there is a plaque from Lord Tennyson that says "One God, one Law, One Element and one far off Divind event to which the whole Creation moves."
Of course, the CIA headquarters has the famous bible quote "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
Do I need to go on?
Okay... I went a little crazy with the research I did in responding to your comment, and so I will place my response in a new thread, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Its at least as nice as your attempt to equate my personal atheism to a desire to remove any mention of your religious myths from "anything." Quid pro quo, my friend. There are appropriate places to make religious statements, and there are inappropirate ones. I have no problem with people who make personal statements of religious belief, but I do have a problem when they ask me to pay for them. Fortunately, the Law is pretty firmly on my side in most of these cases.
Now, before we go on, let me restore the full context of the exchange which led to my question...
Now, I made the point of restoring the context above for one simple reason. None of the examples you provided were put in place by the "the Constitution and the Congress that ratified it." Thus, on a strict level, none of your examples satisfy the premise of the original challenge. Nevertheless, I will respond to each in turn with a more detailed explanation of why "it depends."
This is a common canard which relies (as such canards often do) on a combination of inaccurate and out of context observations. There are two carvings of Moses in the Supreme Court, and a Statue of Moses in the Library of Congress.
Let's start with Moses and the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court building.
There are indeed several friezes that depict Moses in and around the Supreme Court building. However, the context which you ignore is the fact that in none of the cases is the figure of Moses depicted alone or in a unique context. For example, here is a picture of the frieze to which christian historical revisionists usually point to regarding this claim...
Unfortunately (for the revisionists), the figures in this frieze depict neither Moses nor the 10 Commandments. These are a series of allegorical images that represent "The Majesty of Law" (on the left), and "The Power of Government" (on the right). The assumption is that the Roman Numerals I. though X. on the tablet in the center represent the christian 10 commandments, but in reality the artist was commissioned and subsequently intended this piece to represent The Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). How do we know this? Well, not only has the curator of the Supreme Court clearly indicated this fact, but we actually have the original letter which accompanied the art work when it was submitted for approval to Cass Gilbert, the architect who designed the structure, and which specifically states Adolph A. Weinman's (the artist who created the frieze) intent. Similar claims are made concerning the Roman Numeral I. through X. that appear elsewhere in the building, but in each of those cases similar references exist that dispel the revisionist presumption that these numbers reference the 10 Commandments.
But, that's not to say that there isn't actually a depiction of Moses in the Supreme Court building. In actuality, there are two. The first is on the East Pediment of the building. But once again, when you acutally look at the sculpture, Moses is not alone in the depiction. In this case, the artists depicted three figures, representing the three great civilizations from which our understanding of the Law is derived...Confucius, Moses and Solon. The Moses figure in this piece does hold two tablets, but they are intentionally left blank so as to confer the powerful image of the Law which that figure represents without actually including any sort of religious reference.
And finally, if we go back into the main Court Room, the friezes on the north and south walls of the chamber depict Moses as just one of 18 "great lawgivers"...Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (on the south wall) and Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (on the north wall). Now, in this frieze (also created by Adolph A. Weinman), Moses is actually holding the 10 Commandments. But interestingly, the sculpture only depicts five of those commandments...i.e. the numbers 6 - 10 which proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness. These five were chosen for the frieze because they depicted elements of "the law." The first five commandments (no other gods, no graven images, taking "the lord's" name in vain, remember the sabbath, honor your father and mother) were however intentionally left out of the depiction, since those commandments (1-4, at least) were uniquely religious and thus inappropriate to the theme and artisitic vision of the piece. Besides, if your reasoning held true for Moses in this frieze, we could just as easily declare the U.S. a "muslim nation," since his depiction in the same piece includes an open book that holds an arabic passage from the Qu'ran.
Taken together, these examples provide us with a perfect example of how one can refer to the cultural relevance of a religious figure, without crossing the line into a religious establishment. No reasonable person could look at these depictions and reach the conclusion that their intent was offer any special significance to the christian religion. The christian figures are in each case presented alongside other figures (some religion, some not) because of the relevance to the concept of The Law, and not because they held some special religious significance to the government.
Now...moving on to the National Archives. I had to turn to the SCOTUS to find out more about this one. The depiction to which you refer is a bronze inlay in the floor of the rotunda which does actually refernence the 10 Commandments. But once again, you fail to acknowledge the context of the piece in question. In this case, the inlay is one of four similar depictions, representing defense, history, justice, and legislation. Accourding to Justice Souter...
"The inlay on the floor of the National Archives Building is one of four such discs, the collective theme of which is not religious. Rather, the discs “symbolize the various types of Government records that were to come into the National Archive.” Letter from Judith A. Koucky, Archivist, Records Control Section to Catherine Millard, Oct. 1, 2003 (on file with Clerk of the Court). (The four categories are war and defense, history, justice, and legislation. Each disc is paired with a winged figure; the disc containing the depiction of the Commandments, a depiction that, notably, omits the Commandments’ text, is paired with a figure representing legislation. Ibid.) (LINK)
So, again we have a case where there is no reasonable assumption that the display was intended to convey a religious message. Thus, there is no conflict with the Establishment Clause.
It is interesting to note, that the "Adams Prayer Mantle" in the Presidential Dining Room wasn't placed there by John Adams (who in all likelihood would have disapproved). After all, it was Adams who signed into Law the statement that "the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." It was put in place by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, over 100 years after "the Congress that ratified" the Constituiton were all dead and buried, and during a period in which the religious zeal of our country was at one of its highest points, ever. There are two interesting points to note regarding Roosevelt's decision. For one, Presidents are given a great deal of leeway when it comes to decorating the White House, and since that mansion also serves as their personal residence, there is not particular obstacle that I can detect that would prevent them from putting something like this in place. I find it a little humorous that you would attempt to cite this as a source, since in fact the orignal quote comes from a letter (i.e. a "non-federal document" of the sort which you have dismissed with such distain, above). What makes it interesting, however, is that as a known deist, it is unlikely that Adams' original utterance could be construed to represent the blending of the christian religion and the government that you suggest. In fact, in the original letter (which was to his wife, Abigail) he included an assurance that "I Shall Say nothing of public affairs." In this case, I do actually think that Roosevelt's placement of this prayer was inappropriate, for the same reasons as we have discussed regarding presidential proclamations of prayer. A reasonable person could construe this as suggesting a religious establishment.
Now you're really reaching. The Library of Congress is a cultural archive, and there is a LOT of religion in the culture and history of the United States. But once again you are conveniently ignoring the quotations that surround that paiting (actually four paintings, titled WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, KNOWLEDGE, and PHILOSOPHY...respectively) that set the context for these depictions. The quote that you reference is actually a line from Shakespeare (Henry IV, pt. ii, Act iv., Sc. 7), and it is only one of eight similar quotes that appear on a series of golden tablets under these paintings. The other quotations are:
"There is only one good, namely knowledge; and only one evil, namely ignorance" ~ Socrates
"Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers" ~ Tennyson
"Wisdom is the pricipal thing; therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting, get understanding" ~ Proverbs
"How charming is divine philosophy!" ~ Milton
"Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books." ~ Bacon
"In books lies the souls of the whole past time" ~ Carlyle
"Words are also actions and actions are a kind of words" ~ Emerson
Can you guess the theme of this gallery? I'll give you a hint...it's not religion. The ceiling of this area depicts allegorical representations of the five senses..."Taste," "Sight," "Smell," "Hearing" and "Touch". There are also panels depicting "Industry" and "Concordia," as well as "Fortitude" and "Justice." There are also a series of medallions representing a series of knowledges and endeavors, including "Navigation," "Mechanics," "Transportation," "Geometry," "Meteorology," and "Forestry." Here again, we have a recognition of a religious statement in its artistic and philosophical context, but no actual reason to construe that expression in a particularly religous context. So once again, there is no conflict here with the Establishment Clause.
As for this one, I have to admit that I was not able to find any information to either support or reject your interpretation. Do you know the name of the sculpture, or any specifics about history of its placement?
Now, this is a particularly interesting one. The full quote that appears on the Monument reads as follows...
"Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."
Even just taking the full quote as it appears on the monument would seem to represent a serious flaw in your interpretation, since it specifically refers to the idea that the government should be prohibited from forcing citizens to promote "any religious worship or ministry." The Jefferson Memorial is another example of a monument that was created more than a century after the death of the man it honors, and wich takes some liberties with the actual beliefs that this founder espoused. This is also a composite quotation. The first part of this is lifted with liberal license from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (which Jefferson wrote). Notice the ellipses in the quotation, and then take a look at what that quotation leaves out from its original source (in bold)...
"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
The sheer amount of editing that was used in the creation of the "quotation" on the monument is troublesome, but the additional disingenuity of your futher ommissions represent a truly disturbing an clearly intentional attempt to change the meaning of Jefferson's actual words. The Virginia Act of Religious Freedom was pretty darn clear about the sorts of things that it considered unacceptable, and your interpretation of church and state entaglement is exactly the sort of thing that this Act was intended to prevent. And just to put some icing on the cake, this particular Act, and even the specific phrase that you misrepresent, was a subject that Jefferson touched on in his Autobiography. In it, Jefferson wrote...
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." ~ Thomas Jefferson
The last sentence comes from a letter written to James Madison in 1789, in which Jefferson was criticizing the machinations that lead most political opponents to disagree with one another on every point, simply because they were opponents. The comment is not framed in a particularly religious context.
Now, does this building represent a religous establishment? I'm not honestly sure. A well-educated citizen could not reasonably assume it so, as he (or she) would be expected to be at least marginally familiar with the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and no one who was would make the sophomoric assumption that the source of this quote was actually intended to be a christian or even particularly religous assertion. But then again, the ignorant masses could be hoodwinked by such a dramatic misrepresentation, and it does make one wonder if the on the fact deception of this quotation was an intentional ploy. So for me, this one falls into a grey area.
That it took the Congress 83 sessions to get around to this idea says a lot, I think. And, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that the Congress has acted in an inappropriately religious manner. This room was built and apportioned by the same sitting Congrress which inserted "under God" into the previously secular pledge. It bespeaks of a powerful modern religious lobby to which the far right in our government has been pandering to for years. It does not however represent the intentions of the founding fathers, and the stained glass window does not depict an actual event.
Its a beautiful painting. I am actually a fan of a lot of religious art. One does not need to be religious to appreciate great art, and since so much historical art is religious in origin, there is no surprise to find it scattered here and there among the collections of our various national offices.
That's all interesting, but how to equate these to a religious establishment. As we have already discussed, Washington wasn't a particularly religous man. Also, the magnificent block of hand-crafted limestone on which this quote appears was not commissioned as such by the federal government. The State of Kentucky crafted and donated the block during the raising of the monument as a statement of loyalty following the Civil War. In reality, the "under the auspices of heaven" comes from Jefferson's treatise on slavery and racism (note: "heaven" wasn't capitalized in the original). So once again, you have a phrase that at best (for your position) comes from the point of view of a deist. There is certainly no evidence that this quote represents the opinons of either of these founding fathers.
Now, this one is just downright hilarious, since it is widely accepted among Early American scholars that Lincoln was for all intents and purposes, an atheist, not a christian (and as an aside, probably gay, too). Like many modern (and ancient) politicians, Lincoln was apt to pander to his constituents, and quite often that meant affecting a false piety. In fact however, Lincoln was extremely critical and even distainfully dismissive of religious beliefs (and christianity in particular). For example, in a Judge J S Wakefield Lincoln wrote, "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Another famous Lincoln quote is, "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession," and while many religious people point to his First Innaugural Address as a sign of his belief in christianity, they never seem to remember his Second Innaugural Address, in which Lincoln sarcastically noted that, "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes 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." It is also interesting to note that at least some of the religious passages in Lincoln's First Innaugural Address appear to have been inserted after the fact, by someone other than the President.
And once again, there is a lot more to the display that your tunnel visioned interpretation would have us believe. This particular plague is part of a series of plaques that sit beneatch eight symbolic statues (representing "Philosophy," "Art," "History," "Religion," "Science," "Law" and "Poetry"). Just as in the examples we have discussed above, some of these quotes come from religious sources, and some do not.
Perhaps we should consider some of the other displays at the Library of Congress, in order to test your reasoning. For example, the West Front Exterior of the Library of Congress has a fountain that depicts a scene in the Court of Neptune, the Roman "god" of the sea. There are two panels from ancient Pompeiian that depict "Fortitvde" and "Jvstice." The bronze doors there include a depiction of the Roman goddess, Minerva, titled "The Art of Printing." The Entrance vestibule includes two more statues of Minerva, the "Minerva of War" and the "Minerva of Peace," and a third piece depicting Minerva surmounts the eastern side of the Great Hall. A marble mosaic of Minerva is also on the wall of the staircase leading to the Visitors' Gallery that attiburtes her with the governance of various fields of learning, beneath which is a bronze plaque with the inscription that reads NIL INVITA MINERVA QUAE MONUMENTUM AERE PERENNIUS EXEGIT (or rather, "Not unwilling, Minerva raises a monument more lasting than bronze."). On the south side of the Great Hall is a carving that depicts Bacchus, the Roman god of wine, and Venus appear as mosaics in the South Mosaic Corridor. The list quite literally goes ON AND ON AND ON.
Do you think these displays indicate an intent that the U.S. government shold be based on the literal religious beliefs of ancient Rome, or is it more likely that the are located in our nation's cultural archive simply includes them due to their artistic and historical relevance?
So, turning back to the original question of whether or not I "think that the builders of the buildings that house our government were part of some christian force trying to create a theocracy." Were these attempts to create a "theocracy?" Well, that might be a bit of a stretch. But when one considers that none of the examples that you listed actually originated with or accurately represented our founding fathers, I think that there is a case to be made that yes, there has been many noticeable attempts to obscure the actual beliefs that these men held concerning the nature of religion and government, often with the apparent motivation of building a false history that give a more significant role to the religion of christianty than it actually deserves. And, futher considering of your own very narrow and contextually vacuous presentation, I think that you are also guilty in that regard.
Well, if you want to claim the CIA as a accurate representative of your religious beliefs, I think I can concede to the connection in this one case...chuckle.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I'm amazed at how easily you dismiss things that you disagree with, holding on to the thinest strings as gospel truth.
"no, you can't be right, Lance, because this one guy said something that maybe kind of might show you to be wrong, so he HAS to be true!"
Here's one example off the top of my head. You, a homosexual athiest, believes Lincoln to be a gay atheist. Is that because a God-fearing Republican is just not who you want to have to hold up as the one who freed the slaves in the Civil War?
Here are some Lincoln quote that your 'research' on Lincoln seems to have missed:
"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion."
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty."
"If I had had my way, this war would never have been commenced; If I had been allowed my way this war would have ended before this, but we find it still continues; and we must believe that He permits it for some wise purpose of his own, mysterious and unknown to us; and though with our limited understandings we may not be able to comprehend it, yet we cannot but believe, that he who made the world still governs it. "
And of course, one of the more famous ones:
"I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day." (That'd be a reference to prayer, I'm sure even you are willing to recognize that.)
As for Lincoln being Gay, all you REALLY have is that when a poor fellow, he shared a room with Joshua Speed. An interesting note, however, is that references to that being a homosexual relationship didn't come up until some Kinsey researchers (you know, the ones who think that fathers having sex with their sons is good for their sons) suggested it. Salon wrote an article about a decade ago saying that they were gay, based on nothing but the standard sources for Salon magazine: Nothing.
Sorry... the idea that Lincoln is a gay atheist is only there because people on the left can't envision a god-fearing straight white male doing anything good.
Reply if you'd like, I'm done with this cycle from you, here.
And I am amazed at how willing you are to seize upon the most irrelevant aside from a comment, simply in order to avoid having to admit that your pro-religious claims regarding our government were, once again, clearly false.
That you find these claims "amazing" just goes to show once more that you really aren't very familiar with the subject of American History. Now, I grant that the claim of Lincoln's sexuality is speculative (that's why I said "probably," above). After all, how does one establish such a thing in a historical figure that did not openly speak of his private affairs? What we do know is that Lincoln was well known to be uncomfortable around women, and had unusually close and intimate relationships with several men (namely Billy Greene, Col. Elmer Ellsworth, Captain David Derickson and of course, Joshua Speed), that in retrospect seem (though cannot be definitively proved) to have been more than just "friends."
We also know, oddly enough, that Lincoln on occasion wrote bawdy poetry about men, including this one which was about two men who married one another...
I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama's well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me
Factually incorrect. C.A. Trip was not the first historian to make the connection. The famous historian Carl Sandburg referenced the possibility of a relationship between Lincoln and Joshua Speed in his 1926 Pulitzer-winning Abraham Lincoln: The War Years.
But as to the subject of Lincoln's lack of genuine religious belief (whether true atheism or simply a frank agnosticism), that is a subject in which there is widespread agreement among the relevant scholars. Lincoln was notorious for his political pandering, and he certainly put forth a different face in his public speeches than he did in his private life and correspondences.
LOL...do you know the history of that quote? Let me enlighten you. This quotation comes frm a handbill that was circulated by Lincoln's campaign in 1846 after one of his political opponents (running against him for Congress) accused Lincoln of infidelity and of being being an open enemy to the cause of religion. The accusations hurt Lincoln's political standing, and he circulated the handbill as a form of damage control. If you had ever actually read the source of this quote (rather than quote mining it from some pro-religious website), you might have noticed that it is very cleverly written, and at no point in it does Lincoln actually admit to any personal religious belief. In fact, he even goes so far to say in it that "I am not a member of any Christian Church." In many ways, this hanbill is a lot like Bill Clinton's famous "I did not have sex with that woman."
One of the reasons that we know about Lincoln's atheism is that after his death, his family and friends spoke very openly about the subject. A great many of these revelations can be found in Remsburg's Thomas Paine: The Apostle of Libery (Lincoln was an avid follower of Paine's philosophy). For example from pages 108-111...
Col. Ward H. Lamon (biographer of LIncoln): "He [Lincoln] had made himself familiar with the writings of Paine and Volney--the 'Ruins' of the one, and the 'Age of Reason' of the other, . . .and then wrote a deliverate essay wherein he reached conclusions similar to theirs."
"In this work he intended to demonstrate:
"'First, that the Bible was not God's revelation;
"'Secondly, that Jesus was not the Son of God.'"
Regarding his friend's feligious belief Colonel Lamon says: "Mr. Lincoln was never a member of any church, nor did he believe in the divinity of Christ or the inspiration of the scriptures in the sense understood by evangelical Christians...Indefinite expressions about 'Divine Providence,' the 'Justice of God,' 'the favor of the Most High,' were easy and not inconsistent with his religious notions. In this accordance he indulged freely; but never in all that time [1834 to his death] did he let fall from his lips or his pen an expression which remotely implied the slighest faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior of men"
After Lincoln's death Mrs Lincoln, herself a Christian, made the following statement: "Mr. Linconln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words" (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 489).
Judge David Davis, his life-long friend and his executor, says: "He [Lincoln] had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term."
Concerning Lincoln's religious belief Judge Nelson says: "In religion Mr. Lincoln was of about the same belief as Colonel Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find he remained an unbeliever. . . . I asked him once about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published. 'Oh,' said he, 'that is some of Seward's nonsense, and it pleases the fools.'"
As always, you are free to quit the field whenever you wish.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Sometimes you just don't want your peas and potatoes to mix
Look at the cultures that don't have separation of church and state. In Saudi Arabia, you can be arrested just for displaying an improper religious icon. You might think that idea is great for now, but what happens when the religion isn't your practice of choice?
I love abortion. Read more here:
http://progressiveu.org/044921-i-love-abortion-even-if-it-murder