Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-03-2002, 07:38 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
What else can we come to expect from Melon!? I've been reading this forum for a long time and his posts are always predictable. He has claimed in the past that he can't be characterized with political labels, but he is such a disgustingly kneejerk liberal that it's almost laughable. I wish the history of this form could be accessed (from a while ago) because I could easily quote Melon as saying that he will no longer post political messages here anymore. The fact that he can't even keep to his promises speaks volumes about his character. He'll claim that he's a conservative in some issues, but those of us (who don't have a liberal bias) with experience reading his posts know that he constantly tries to incite conservatives with something procative so he can insult them.

"Sometimes, you need to beat people over the head with the truth" - Melon
Frankly I'm pretty sick of his arrogance and rudeness, so I felt it was time for me to reciprocate.
Dear dear Garibaldo...

Lest we forget that, like Achtung Bubba, we are not to ever speak again either. Do you remember?

I see now..."liberals" are mean. Are you going to cry now? These are direct quotes from everyone's favorite "Founding Fathers." It doesn't get more direct than, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." But that's right...everyone who challenges that is just a mean-old liberal who refuses to conform?

I will continue to beat people over the head with the truth; no fuzzy reverse-P.C. historical revisionism to give conservatism a euphoric high. History is pretty damn concrete...except when people forget their history and accept propaganda in its place.

As usual, in the "compassionate" conservative manner, you decide to go on personal attacks, rather than actually comment on the substance of my thread. Reminds me of how Newt Gingrich slammed Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988 for vetoing a bill in Massachusetts to require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance before school, and used it to say that he was "anti-American."

I am not going to be some spineless Democrat, who refuses to make up their own opinion outside of the Republican opinion, for fear that the South won't vote for them come election time. If you can't take the heat, then get the hell out of this place. Make a contribution to this forum, rather than your hit-and-run personal attacks against me.

Other than that, leave me alone. I will not warn you again. This is the last time I shall speak to you, before I remind the mods of our prior consent decree and expect them to enforce it.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 01:04 PM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:42 PM
Good work, Melon.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 01:50 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
HeartlandGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 6,836
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Excellent stuff, melon. My brain thanks you for the food for thought.
__________________
HeartlandGirl is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 02:03 PM   #19
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


If you can't take the heat, then get the hell out of this place. Make a contribution to this forum, rather than your hit-and-run personal attacks against me.

Good point, melon. I think all of us, whether "liberal" or "conservative", need to try and remind ourselves of this. The point of this place is to discuss issues, not personalities.
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 02:37 PM   #20
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Re: Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Thoughts?

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, and I have differing thoughts on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

So where did the idea of "one nation, under God" come from?
The 83rd Congress of the United States.

Melon, if you're trying to make the point that Jefferson believed in the idea of the separation of church and state, I won't argue with you there. If you're trying to make the point that some of the "founding fathers" were not the Christians they are often made out to be, again, I've got no argument.

But if you're trying to say that the U.S. Congress has made a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by establishing a statement containing the words "under God" as the official pledge of the United States.....I don't see how your above quotes lead to that conclusion. So Thomas Jefferson considers the apostle Paul and the Pope, among others, to be the anti-Christ. Ok. Adams stated that the U.S. government wasn't founded on Christianity. No problem. Thomas Paine hates the Bible and, presumably, Christianity. I had no idea he felt that way. But, none of those things show me why this act of Congress in 1954 violates the Constitution. In all honesty (and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass) I may just not be smart enough to figure it out from the quotes you've provided. Maybe you need to spell it out for me. From what I've read in the other "pledge" thread, there's no constitutional problem here. This act of Congress did not establish a religion, and it did not prohibit the free exercise of religion. If people don't like it, I think they should get Congress to designate a new pledge, or drop the official pledge idea.

Thoughts?

Spiral
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 03:59 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
Good luck. I posted some of these in the pledge thread and not one person had any comments--or at least they hadn't when I stopped reading that thread. I thought it would spark pages and pages of lively discussion, but nada.
Well, I can speak for no one else, but I can tell you that I DID read your quotes - and I've just now re-read them - and I simply did not find them germane to the discussion. I thought Sting2 responded well, by reminding everyone the difference between "religion" and "God," so I felt no need to chime in.

As far as I can tell, your quotes can lead to the conclusions that some of the Founding Fathers were not Christians and had a certain disdain and distrust of organized religion. Many were deists, those who believed in a God who created the universe then "left the building." Given that the quotes came from the middle of the Enlightenment - and when most nations had official churchs who made legitimate the rule of the king - it's not a bit surprising.

However, while it's clear that they did not want the U.S. Government to sanction a chuch (in the manner of the Church of England or Rome), it's not clear that they meant MORE than that.

It's certainly not clear that the name of God was NEVER to be uttered by the government.

I believe, honestly, that if such a thing WERE clear, someone would have posted the evidence by now, rather than clouding the issue with irrelevancies about how some of the Founders were deists and not Christians.

(And while there's a huge gap between deists and Christians - the latter believing in divine intervention, the former denying the possibility - there's still one common bond: a belief in God.)


I could actually address most of the quotes, but I believe I need only deal with three, for the moment:

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams

This is probably the closest ANY of the comments come to suggesting something relevant, like rights do not come from God. But there's a MUCH more reasonable interpretation of this quote about the "pretense of miracle or mystery:" Adams was probably criticizing royalty's so-called divine right to rule. I'd bet this has much more to do with King George III than our eventual use of the "under God" clause.

I would need to see the context to be convinced otherwise.


"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." - Thomas Jefferson

Again, here it seems like Jefferson is opposing the idea of a state-run or -approved church, of an American analogue to the Church of England. HENCE, his belief that there should be no external (read: government) influence on an individual's religious beliefs.

To say that this somehow proves that Jefferson would have also opposed the current form of the pledge is to stretch, without justification, the meaning of Jefferson's words.

It's like this: in order to fit "under God" into the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, you have to stretch it FAR beyond what it obviously prohibits (i.e., state-run churches). To do that, you've given this quote, but you're ALSO stretching IT beyond its obvious meaning (again, opposition to state-run churches).

I've yet to see a quote to justify that stretch, the closest being the final quote:

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

You COULD try to read the first part of this quote to mean that liberties do not come from God. But the second half ("the legitimate powers of government...") make clear the meaning:

Jefferson basically supports equal protection under the law, regardless of the religious beliefs of those involved. That says nothing - absolutely nothing - about the source of our rights.


But there ARE two quotes I've given that illuminate Jefferson's opinions on the source of liberty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(Let us not forget: the Declaration of Indepedence was DRAFTED by Thomas Jefferson.)

And let's quote Senate Bill 2690, the Senate's important upholding of the Pledge and the motto:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

...

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `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 of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.



I believe that the intent of the Constitution - as determined by the other words and deeds of the Founding Fathers - clearly allows for the government to profess a belief in a very vague notion of God.

In their totality, all of these quotes do NOTHING to refute my claim.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 05:22 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:42 PM
I did have a point to this thread, and I shall make it clear now. My point was to disprove the common fallacy that "our Founding Fathers" were upright Christian men who would be angered at our current secular state. On the contrary, I think that our Founding Fathers were probably our most anti-religious presidents. Most certainly, I will not disagree that most of our presidents have had a profound Christian sentiment in regards to our nation. William McKinley, president from 1898-1901 (I believe), was a Methodist minister, who conquered the Philippines with the hope of converting them (never mind the fact that the Philippines had been Catholic for nearly 300 years ).

Do I ultimately mind whether you all believe in the "one nation, under God" bit in the Pledge of Allegiance? Certainly not. I'm personally indifferent, as I don't need such a line in the pledge to express my faith in God. Even Jesus made it clear that the best prayers were said in private, behind closed doors. However, I just want to make it clear that history cannot be contorted to support this. Our Founding Fathers were deists (Jefferson's mention of "the Creator" is a distinct deist reference to God) and unitarians. Dwight Eisenhower, who inserted the "under God" phrase, entered it out of proselytization to make us distinct against the atheistic Soviet Union, rather than true faith. The Pledge of Allegiance, itself, was written in 1898 by a political socialist. Believe what you want, everyone, but, please, leave history intact.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 05:41 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 01:42 AM

Oh, I see. Are we just completely forgetting history now? You are the Newt Gingrich of the left. Let me refresh your memory and be the ghost of Melon past:

02-08-2002
Post Title: CBO Rates Bush Tax Cut Plans
You basically posted a negative article on Bush's economic plan and said NOTHING. You literally posted a negative opinion about the plan, which someone else came up with and didn't say a word.

02-07-2002
Post Title: Republican Lie #1
Again, you posted a negative post about Republicans from the Wall Street Journal and really didn't engage in any arguements except to parrot what the article said and come to the mistaken conclusion that since you think the WSJ is conservative, that even the conservatives recognize their own lies, which is flawed logic. This post didn't demonstrate anything except that you pay particular attention to GOP-bashing articles. There is no thoughtful analysis here.

09-30-2001
Post Title: Democracy Held Hostage
You basically posted a long article by Salon.com (notoriously liberal) questioning what the Republicans can do with our freedom of speech in wartime. You didn't offer any analysis and the post quickly died.

09-04-2001
Post Title: I'm a kid in a political candy store...
You listed three Republicans who weren't planning to come back and said "All I can say is keep it coming!!". Then a conservative retorts and you reply with "And with the dumbest Republican president in decades (perhaps even beating such past winners as Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant), it's not bloody likely." That's all!


02-07-2002
Post Title: How to argue like Rush Limbaugh
You just basically posted a long list of insults towards a famous conservative in an OBVIOUS attempt to be flamed. You also go on to imply that user "the HORROR" is stupid and you say that he's a troll though his only crime was pointing out an opinion, which sulawesigirl14 agreed with.

02-07-2002
Post Title: Rush Limbaugh: "His Highness" Speaks on the Environment
I can't believe how many anti-conservative posts you made in one day. Were you having your liberal period? This post is basically copied verbatim from: http://www.bestofmaui.com/rush.html or a similar site. Normally people have some self-respect and actually quote their sources instead of just posting it and letting people assume it was your own research that came to these conclusions. You basically just waited for the inevitable conservative to come in and get flamed. You even claim in this post that you did this in retaliation to "liberal bashing" that you've noticed lately, which is sad.

08-11-2001
Post Title: Bush: A Pro-Life Hypocrite?
You post an article and ask for opinions as usual. Nothing special to add from you in addition to the link (as always). You're just waiting for the conservatives to start in so you can attack with your mindless crap

08-14-2001
Post Title: I don't like conservatism
This is Melon's most outrageous posting. He starts with "I think conservatism is inherently evil. I think it is evil wearing a shroud of goodness...perhaps the greatest evil of them all. I think it is conservatives that advance the destruction of the world in their attempts to 'save the world.' And, of course, I cannot prove this. It is something that has sat in the annals of my conscience for years." Doesn't seem like he's trying to stir things up? Does that seem like thoughtful debate? His views are insane in this post. He claims that conservatives don't give you "free choice" while liberals do. He goes on to predict what "we" would do the following: "liquor would probably be banned, all non-Christians would be either killed or wholly silenced, homosexuals would be killed, movies would be censored, free speech would be censored, schools would teach nothing but tripe interspersed with religion, science would die altogether as all things that contradict the Bible would be made devoid" There's, of course, no proof of any of this. He also feels like he doesn't need to give any proof when he makes bold statements like "Conservatism tends to expouse religion, but they are wrong 75% of the time". Where does he get the 75% figure from? Your guess is as good as mine. The funniest part is where he says he doesn't want conservatives to take what he wrote personally at the end! HAHAHA

Basically, I want to point out to all of your other kneejerk liberals who inevitably rise to defend him that his history on this board is rarely a thoughtful one. His is one of the most biased, conservative-hating people on this board. Perhaps the most! The pursuit of the truth should be as unbiased as possible. So when he says something bold like "I will continue to beat people over the head with the truth", know that his truth starts as the standard liberal status quo and continues as he adds evidence to support that view. Truth should be obtained from a fairly nonpartisan approach to both sides and eventual reconciliation. I can't say that I'm perfect at this, but he definitely takes the cake. You accuse me of going on personal attacks, but if you look at what I've just posted, you've called people morons, stupid, and made wicked generalizations about the evils of conservatives, which is a like a mass slap in the face. If you wanted a detailed analysis of why I hate you, there it IS. Your idle threats against me are silly and childish. Perhaps you should go back to whortense or any other alternate account (don't the mods have a problem with this?) and leave this despicable character behind.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 05:45 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:42 PM
I have sufficiently warned you, and now I shall be bringing this to the appropriate authorities. I shall let them do as they wish.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 06:11 PM   #25
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 01:42 AM
That's right, Melon. Avoid the voice of your critics. Run and tell mommy as little children do.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 06:16 PM   #26
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Cant we all just get along

garibaldo your first post to melon was pretty unnecessary.

Why dont we let it rest.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 06:49 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 01:42 AM
Fine, I agree that the first post was just a flame. I just wanted everyone to know the history of this user.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 07:57 PM   #28
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 05:42 PM
They can figure it out for themselves.

Thank you for your cooperation.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 08:21 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Fine, I agree that the first post was just a flame. I just wanted everyone to know the history of this user.
...and everyone doesn't give a shit.

Goodbye, garibaldo. By far, my most favorite forum troll. When you can actually formulate an actual opinion on an actual academic subject, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, you're simply a broken record. Would you like me to post your history? It's actually quite simple to recite, though; a bunch of incoherent posts, where you ignore the topic at-hand and spend all your time insulting me. How time-worthy indeed...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-03-2002, 08:35 PM   #30
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Normal

melon.
__________________

__________________
Sicy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com