English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Our forefathers both assumed and declared basic Judeo-Christian principles as part of our heritage as a place of religious liberty. The Ten Commandments are an integral part of our legal system!

The Founding Fathers intended a separation of church and state, why didn't the early Supreme Court decisions reflect that sentiment? Many of the early Justices actually wrote and ratified the first amendment.

Look up the Supreme Court decision in "Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States" in 1892. The following quote comes from that case:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation."

2007-05-29 04:18:41 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

19 answers

If the anti-christians would read the constitution (cover to cover) they will never find the term "separation of church and state",no hint of that.
What does it say (simple to read):

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The so called "separation of church and state" clause didn't come from the constitution.

The prevalence of the term "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.

2007-05-29 06:56:52 · answer #1 · answered by robert p 7 · 0 1

so because one supreme justice said this he speaks for the whole nation. take your head out of the gov't issued history book and do some actually investigation you'll find that most of the "founding fathers" were no different than the shady evil doers we have in office now that try and push their morality on the people when the people obviously don't want it. what the government is doing today is nothing short of trying to mandate religion without technically mandating it. praying in school the ten commandments at courthouses these are all violations of church and state. there is more than one religion in this country now. this isn't 1776 wake up if you put a ten commandments up then we have to have the different laws from different religions put up as well. but since your Judeo christian religion has a built us against them complex we cant do that because your religion is the "only" way to get to heaven. what happens when you die and you realize that you spent you whole life devoted to a fictional book that may or may not be true. its the equivalent of worshiping star wars or star trek. or what happens when you die and you picked the wrong faith. don't base your life decisions on a book written by men thousands of years ago.

2007-05-29 11:29:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Treaty of Tripoli, was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797. Article Eleven of that treaty states:

“...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

Please tell me how many of the 10 commandments are law, and why the few that are law here are also law everywhere else in the civilized world, Christian or not?

Justice Brewer, who wrote that famous line you gleefuly reference, was referring to Christians being a majority; not that our laws are somehow Christian. In fact, in a later case, when a Christian church challenged a city ordinance allowing prostitution, and argued that prostitution should be illegal because the activity was inconsistent with Christianity, Brewer completely ignored the church's argument and upheld the pro-prostitution ordinance.

Brewer clealry did not mean to imply in Holy Trinity that the United States should enforce the dictates of Christianity by law. Had that been Brewer's intention, he surely would not have ruled against the Church as he did.

2007-05-29 11:34:08 · answer #3 · answered by SvetlanaFunGirl 4 · 2 0

Once again, the Christian Right has changed history to fit their beliefs. The decision you're quoting only reafirms the spperation of Church and State.

Thomas Jefferson explicitely stated there is a "wall of seperation" between church and state. That phrase has been quoted numerous time by the Supreme Court, first in 1878, then again in the 40's and most recently in 2006.

Nobody is denying that the founders of our nation were Christian. However, that is beside the point. The seperation exists to protect all of our freedoms. The Church is free to practice any religion without the constraints of government. And non-believers are free to live life without the constraints of religion.

Why is this so difficult to accept for the Religious Right? It's one of the most brilliant concepts in all of the world's governement, because everyone is free. The turmoil exists when religion wants to encroach too far.

I don't believe in any gods. Why should, in this case, Christianity be allowed to force its laws onto me. I don't want to force anything on christianity? For instance- I believe homosexuals should be allowed the same freedoms I'm allowed under the government, but I don't believe christianity should be forced to allow homosexuals anything they don't want to allow.

That to me is freedom of religion, and freedom of equality.

2007-05-29 11:44:21 · answer #4 · answered by Incognito 5 · 1 0

You ask why the Supreme Court didn't reflect that sentiment and then point out that many of the early Justices actually wrote the amendment that promotes a separation of church and state?

I really wonder about your logic. I just don't understand how your mind works. You assert something, then give evidence to the contrary? At least put together a decent argument here.

2007-05-29 11:25:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

The founding Fathers where Deist a lost sect of Christianity that felt that god created everything and then left it alone to the devices of man
The Supreme Court has had its faults in the past also ala, Plessy v. Ferguson.

Look at legal history and before the ten commandments where around laws still existed such as Don’t kill people, Don’t steel.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

2007-05-29 11:28:44 · answer #6 · answered by John C 6 · 2 0

Oh man copy and pasting from a christian website again I see?

Actually many of our forefathers were Deists. Not Christians. It was a healthy mix and it doesnt matter if they were christians, diests, or atheists....As you can see for the most part they respected each other's space.

Why dont you sit there and read the entire church of the holy trinity vs. united states and then come to a conclustion? Not just pick a quote that someone said and then base the entire thing on a silly premesis?

BTW....Only people can be christian, not nations, not companies...etc.

2007-05-29 11:25:02 · answer #7 · answered by Sheriff of R&S 4 · 4 1

I'm not even going to get into all of this, but how are the 10 commandments incorporated into our justice system?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me - Freedom of Religion shows that this is not at ALL in our laws.

Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol - again, freedom of religion allows this. You could worship a burnt out Honda if you wanted.

Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your God - Freedom of speech. No law in the US forbids the use of God's name in any manner

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy - blue laws are largely gone, although some states still have them with regard to liquor and car sales.

Honor Thy Mother and Father - There is no law saying that you have to honor your parents. You must treat them with the same respect afforded all other humans, but that idea is not rooted in the Bible but rather in common decency.

Thou shalt not murder - Show me a non-theocratic culture where murder is legal.

Thou shalt not commit adultery - not illegal per se, but it *is* grounds for divorce.

Thou shalt not steal - again, show me a culture where theft is legal. This is noty a Judeo Christian ideal. Even Saddam outlawed theft.

Thou shalt not bear false witness - This idea goes back to Hamurrabi, but here you are legally allowed to lie, but under oath it becomes a problem.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife - Legally you can covet all you want, but your neighbour would have grounds for divorce and would probably get all the good stuff.

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house - again, you can covet all you want, but if you steal, you'll get in trouble.

So basically, perjury, theft and murder are the only 10 commandments that make it into law.

2007-05-29 11:36:41 · answer #8 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 0 0

The ten Commandments are part of our legal system.

The please tell me where it says in any law that adultery is illegal? Or keeping the Sabbath for that matter!

Secondly their is no such thing as Judeo-Christian. It is a politically correct term that has no practical or actual meaning. It is the same as Islamo-Christian.

Lastly

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli- 1796 ratified by the United States Senate by unanimous vote.

2007-05-29 11:22:26 · answer #9 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 7 2

Thomas Jefferson? [Please Note the Dates... Beats yours.]

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

2007-05-29 11:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

fedest.com, questions and answers