Supremes Vote 5-4 To Support Public Prayer

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yet there is no a single shred of evidence that the Constitution is based in Christian philosophy as I have pointed out. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid any such bias. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, even Washington avoided any inferences to christianity. Jefferson and Madison particularly went to great lengths to argue against any involvement between church and state, particularly with christianity. Instead, as I have pointed out the premise of "all men being created equal" dates back to the atheist philosophers Plato and Aristotles and from the paganist Stoics, all well before the time of Christ. Can you point out where in the bible any mention of "all men created equal"? Your evidence is solely based on the common date nomenclature used in that time. You can continue with ad homien attacks, but your premise is entirely faulty. You simply have zero evidence that the Constitution is based on "christian philosophy", whatever that means. The Constitution and this great nation is built on We, the People, not on superstition.

Why be honest when a lie will do, right Dog? You said there was no mention of God in the Constitution and I showed you where you were wrong. That has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here, but nice try to falsely frame the discussion yet again.

While we are on the subject, of your lies that is, we should also note your incorrectly tying Jefferson to deism and his removal of all the religious components in his "Jefferson" Bible. Both statements are incorrect, though I believe you have heard those lies repeated so often on your echo chamber that you believe them to to be true.

Jefferson was a unitarian, not a deist. He rejected the notion of a Trinity, but not the existence of God. Not a god, God. He attended unitarian services when in Philadelphia and corresponded on religious matters with his friend and minister Joseph Priestly, John Adams and others of that faith. If one wishes to call him a deist, then they should rightly call him a Christian deist, one who believes in the moral teachings of Jesus, just not in His divinity. That is all that Jefferson edited out of his bible, again contrary to your assertion that any religious components were edited out. Lending further support to this premise, in an 1809 letter to James Fishback he wrote, "We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses". Jefferson also wrote that he was "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others" in an 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush. So if you insist on calling him a deist Dog, intellectual honesty requires that you preface that with "Christian" when you do.

Christianity, according to Jefferson, contained the "most sublime and benevolent code or morals which has ever offered to man". He considered religion a necessary support for republican governments. He allowed, and attended, religious services in executive branch buildings during his administration. He regularly contributed to churches, bible societies and even directly to members of the clergy. He even went so far as to actually sanction the use of government money to support a priest and a church for a tribe of Indians while president.

Now I will grant you that Jefferson generally held a dim view of the clergy overall, and was not an overwhelming fan of organized religion, though he often attended services throughout his life and actually personally asked his friend Priestly to send down a minister to open a Unitarian Church for him to attend, but to say that he didn't hold Christian philosophy close to his heart given the degree to which he held the morals of Jesus? Preposterous is the only fitting word in the English language to describe such a view.

I'll close with perhaps one of Jefferson's most memorable quotes taken from the Notes on the State of Virginia that he authored in 1785: "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; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

And you would have us believe that this was a man who rejected Christian philosophy? Preposterous. He lived his life by it. He might not have believed that Jesus was divine, or that the Trinity existed, but he certainly didn't reject the philosophy of Christianity.

Jefferson and Madison, the two most influential founding fathers, were essentially if not exclusively "christian deistists" believing in the moral teachings but not the divinity of Christ. The debate here is not Jefferson's religious proclivities, but his unequivocal stance that no religion, particularly christianity should be intertwined with the political process, particularly the Constitution. This stance was shared by Madison, Franklin, Washington and others and is illustrated throughout their individual and collective writings. This was illustrated in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming the paganistic philosophy that all men are created equal and possess certain inalienable rights endowed by their "Creator". Note that this is not found anywhere in the Bible or teachings of Christ, but goes back to the atheists Plato and Aristotle and paganists Stoics. This is not a christian philosophy, but is based on the natural law teachings of non-christians.

AHEM...... http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psy ... ashist.htm YOUR thoughts PS?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Jefferson and Madison, the two most influential founding fathers, were essentially if not exclusively "christian deistists" believing in the moral teachings but not the divinity of Christ. The debate here is not Jefferson's religious proclivities, but his unequivocal stance that no religion, particularly christianity should be intertwined with the political process, particularly the Constitution. This stance was shared by Madison, Franklin, Washington and others and is illustrated throughout their individual and collective writings. This was illustrated in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming the paganistic philosophy that all men are created equal and possess certain inalienable rights endowed by their "Creator". Note that this is not found anywhere in the Bible or teachings of Christ, but goes back to the atheists Plato and Aristotle and paganists Stoics. This is not a christian philosophy, but is based on the natural law teachings of non-christians.

It is unequivocally part of Christian philosophy that all of God's children are equal in His eyes. We can start with Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:9-11 and Acts 10:34 and Acts 17:26. To say the philosophy was not unique to Christianity would be accurate, but to say that the concept is not to be found in Christian philosophy is nonsense.

And the debate here is not about whether or not there should be a state religion, Christian or otherwise, there was never any question as to the intent on that question. No, the topic of debate between us is whether or not the Constitution contains Christian philosophy in its pages and whether or not the framers themselves infused it with the Christian philosophy that they held in their hearts as they created it. To pretend that the philosophy by which they lived their lives is absent from their work is to remove all tethers to reason. These men, by a large majority, were devoutly religious men. They may have belonged to many different churches, but of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention 51 belonged to Christian churches. The men who penned that document were Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, and Methodists. And you would have us believe that their Christian philosophy is absent from the Constitution? That premise is absurd on its face and you know it.

I always figured that the government is not based on a religion, and it specifically states that the government can make no law restricting religion. So, government cannot muck around with religion.

But, the entire idea of our system of government is based on the same morals that can be found in almost every organized religion. That doesn't exclude atheists, but a moral atheist is following morals outlined by the religions, whether they believe the source to be divine or not. So, the morals defined by religions can and do affect the government. I have heard many non-denominational prayers that were simply a call to moral and thoughtful behavior. That's the type of prayer I think should take place. If you don't like the word prayer, think of it as a baseline meeting mission statement.

And that is what the Supreme Court is saying as long as the prayer is general and not lobbying for a particular faith, it is good to go.

:banghead: Dog, to not realize the importance of the Bible to our founding fathers is putting blinders on. They were very much against a state church, example, the Church of England, but the Bible was a book all of them grew up with in school and at home.

Nobody that matters wrote: I always figured that the government is not based on a religion, and it specifically states that the government can make no law restricting religion. So, government cannot muck around with religion.

But, the entire idea of our system of government is based on the same morals that can be found in almost every organized religion. That doesn't exclude atheists, but a moral atheist is following morals outlined by the religions, whether they believe the source to be divine or not. So, the morals defined by religions can and do affect the government. I have heard many non-denominational prayers that were simply a call to moral and thoughtful behavior. That's the type of prayer I think should take place. If you don't like the word prayer, think of it as a baseline meeting mission statement.

THANK YOU for the bolded....my take.....a MINDFUL moment of meditation (prayer)....

FredHayek wrote: And that is what the Supreme Court is saying as long as the prayer is general and not lobbying for a particular faith, it is good to go.

:banghead: Dog, to not realize the importance of the Bible to our founding fathers is putting blinders on. They were very much against a state church, example, the Church of England, but the Bible was a book all of them grew up with in school and at home.

What this decision says is that even if the prayer is not general, even if the prayer offered at the invocation is overtly Christian, it doesn't violate any part of the Constitution. The minister or priest offering the invocation may make the prayer specific to their faith and their faith alone and no constitutional infringement occurs as a result. The reason for this is that it is not the government that is praying, it is the people themselves who are praying, offering prayers to their God and for the benefit of all present, particularly the elected representatives of the people.

The reason for the lawsuit was that some members awaiting their turn to address the body were "offended" by the prayer that was offered. They were "offended" that the prayer referenced the particular faith of the person offering the prayer. Well, the constitution doesn't establish or protect a right to never be "offended" by the prayers of someone else, which is why this decision was absolutely correct and should have been unanimous instead of split if reason instead of ideology was responsible for how a justice voted.

Nobody that matters wrote: I always figured that the government is not based on a religion, and it specifically states that the government can make no law restricting religion. So, government cannot muck around with religion.

But, the entire idea of our system of government is based on the same morals that can be found in almost every organized religion. That doesn't exclude atheists, but a moral atheist is following morals outlined by the religions, whether they believe the source to be divine or not. So, the morals defined by religions can and do affect the government. I have heard many non-denominational prayers that were simply a call to moral and thoughtful behavior. That's the type of prayer I think should take place. If you don't like the word prayer, think of it as a baseline meeting mission statement.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Jefferson and Madison, the two most influential founding fathers, were essentially if not exclusively "christian deistists" believing in the moral teachings but not the divinity of Christ. The debate here is not Jefferson's religious proclivities, but his unequivocal stance that no religion, particularly christianity should be intertwined with the political process, particularly the Constitution. This stance was shared by Madison, Franklin, Washington and others and is illustrated throughout their individual and collective writings. This was illustrated in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming the paganistic philosophy that all men are created equal and possess certain inalienable rights endowed by their "Creator". Note that this is not found anywhere in the Bible or teachings of Christ, but goes back to the atheists Plato and Aristotle and paganists Stoics. This is not a christian philosophy, but is based on the natural law teachings of non-christians.

It is unequivocally part of Christian philosophy that all of God's children are equal in His eyes. We can start with Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:9-11 and Acts 10:34 and Acts 17:26. To say the philosophy was not unique to Christianity would be accurate, but to say that the concept is not to be found in Christian philosophy is nonsense.

And the debate here is not about whether or not there should be a state religion, Christian or otherwise, there was never any question as to the intent on that question. No, the topic of debate between us is whether or not the Constitution contains Christian philosophy in its pages and whether or not the framers themselves infused it with the Christian philosophy that they held in their hearts as they created it. To pretend that the philosophy by which they lived their lives is absent from their work is to remove all tethers to reason. These men, by a large majority, were devoutly religious men. They may have belonged to many different churches, but of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention 51 belonged to Christian churches. The men who penned that document were Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, and Methodists. And you would have us believe that their Christian philosophy is absent from the Constitution? That premise is absurd on its face and you know it.

Yet you still fail to provide any teaching from the bible that states that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. I agree that the verses cited do support that all men may be created equal in the eyes of the Lord, but none support the natural law philosophy that each and everyone of us, regardless of our religion or lack thereof, have certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights were "self-evident".

Jefferson and Franklin further stated in the Declaration of Independence that in order to secure those self-evident truths, those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from a god, not from a dogmatic religion, but from the consent of the governed.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and the majority of the Founding Fathers made it unequivocal that the Constitution was not based on a religion, particularly not on christianity (as evidenced by their vehement opposition to the originally proposed 1st Amendment which proposed christianity as a national religion and by the specific inclusion of a ban on religious tests on political office).

So now your ever shifting stance has moved from the Constituion being based on "christianity" to be being based on "christianity philosophy" to now being "influenced" by the christian religion of the drafters? Is this correct? It is difficult to keep track of your ever moving goal posts.

Nope, the Constitution is not based on superstition, but on We, the People, and the consent of the governed.