George Washington: If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the constitution framed by the Convention . . . might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.
John Adams: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity
Thomas Jefferson:God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - "Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.
2006-09-01 12:11:01 · 6 answers · asked by Jasmine 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Herbert Hoover: We must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic
2006-09-01 12:11:36 · update #1
I was just reviewing the First Amendment, Separation of Church and State, and what our Founding Fathers meant
Please give me your opinions. Thanks!
2006-09-01 12:13:08 · update #2
Wow Julio....harsh lol
I know my facts. I'm just looking at these too. Putting it all together. WOW this is a hot topic. Calm Down
2006-09-01 12:17:41 · update #3
Gee, Only one real answer. Thanks Coragryph.
2006-09-01 12:50:53 · update #4
If your point is that "separation of church and state" has, these days, become something our Founders wouldn't recognize, then I agree. There are a lot of people who say that "separation of church and state" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution at all so therefore the phrase is not a constituitonal rule. I don't completely agree with that. It is just that I interpret the expression much more narrowly than the radically irreligious left. I believe that the "separation" phrase means nothing more complicated than that the institution of government must be separate from the institutions of organized religion. It means that government cannot pass the buck of law-making and law-enforcing to any church(es). Laws must be made by the institution which is elected by all the people, no matter what their religion, rather than laws (which effect everyone) being made by an organized religion.
There is no reason the rule has to get any more complicated than that.
2006-09-01 15:06:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberty means choice. It means individual belief, not government imposed belief. Jefferson of all people understood that. He was arguing that if you believe in God, you need to allow others to believe as well. Not force them. Allow them. And that means not having religious doctrine dictated as law.
The Adams quote was a historical statement. "We won independence. This was how." That doesn't say anything about the Establishment clause, or whether Christianity should be enshrined as the national religion going forward.
And look at Washington's quote. He was concerned about the government interfering with the "religious rights of any ecclesiastical society". That's the Free Exercise clause. No argument. But again it says nothing about the Establishment clause.
And what Hoover said a century or more after the Founding has has very little to do with anything except his personal beliefs.
Just a few years after Hoover was born, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson as the originator of the concept advocating separation of church and state. The court referred to that statement "an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [1st] amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
And after Hoover left office, the Court referred to the quote as "our accepted belief" and "cardinal in the history of this ation and for the liberty of our people". West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). So, 130 years of confirmed precedent.
Not something to be easily cast aside.
2006-09-01 12:19:19 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm so glad that things are the way they are. I love how some people think that their religious views are the "only" view. There is a separation of church and state for a good reason.
2006-09-01 12:22:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
way to spread your propaganda.... you're totally misrepresenting, ESPECIALLY Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson#Church_and_state
Jefferson was the original PROPONENT of separating church and state!!!!
If you're going to ask such a misleading question... at LEAST get your facts straight.
2006-09-01 12:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I notice that a lot of GOP trolls have moved over to here from the main boards, and a lot of history is being reinvented.
Seperation of church and state means just that.
I don't need to be in YOUR religion to live in this country.
Like it. Lump it. It's true.
2006-09-01 12:19:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Spirituality unites people. Religion divides people.
2006-09-01 12:15:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋