Athiest's Lawsuit Fails...

[Sahkuhnder]

You need to heed Jefferson's own advice concerning his religion:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

Let's analyze the meaning of that quote. Jefferson was not a christian but was a deist, or admirer of "Nature's God" and a strong believer in "the light of science", reason and "logical discourse" and over "the schemes of clergy". He didn't want others to talk of his religion, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." This is exactly my attitude as an agnostic. If you have a relationship with god, I'm fine with that. The moment you start to 'spread the word' as christians are commanded by their holy book to do, that's where you have crossed the line from passive "God and myself alone" to active and imposing your religious view and morality upon others.

I heed Jefferson's advise and don't make any effort to spread a religion I don't even posses.

Please forgive me if I quote your own statement back to you: "You need to heed Jefferson's own advice concerning his religion:"

Do you practice a "Say nothing of my religion" philosophy or do you try to spread your religious beliefs to others?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

...Why do we pay him so much attention as opposed to the founders that were christians that had slightly different views of Jefferson?

In part because Jefferson was the original author of the highly interpreted 'separation of church and state' part of the constitution. When the court needs to make a ruling on based on a given part of the constitution the 'wishes' or 'intentions' of the original writers are considered, which in this case is our man, Mr. 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." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Allah" is Arabic for God. I believe the general consensus among scholars is that "Allah" is a derivative of "Eloh" as in "Elohim", as in "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth".

Well, sorta. "Allah" breaks down as "al-", the Arabic definite article, and "Lah", which is a shortened form of the same root found in Hebrew and Canaanite "El", "Elohim", Akkadian "ilu", and sundry forms in other Semitic languages.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Uhm....nope. The vast majority of them were christian...with a bare handfull of deists and no atheists that I can recall at all.

None of the founding fathers were athiest, but I contest your 'vast majority' analysis. The decision is of course yours to make, but here are some of their comments on religion and christianity for your consideration:


"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance


"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison, -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches


"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford


"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson


"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason


"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." - Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason


"Science is the true theology" - Thomas Paine, The Mind on Fire


"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." - George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham


"In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue." - George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790


"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Ethan Allen, Reason the Only Oracle of Man


"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." - Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography


"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac


Link, link, link, et.al.

 

[Archbob]

If the nation has been founded by Muslilms....probably not.

It matters not who founded the nation, it matters what peopled think now.

However, I don't see why we would change "In God we trust", its obviously some ******** lawsuit to gain some publicity.

 

[IglooDame]

Actually, it was added nearly a century earlier. It first appeared in 1864, but then was discontinued from use in 1883. It was reinstated in 1938.
http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

But frankly, I'm wondering what Newdow's next lawsuit will be. It might be the national anthem:


BUt I'm really waiting for the suit where he wants to declare place names like San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. unconstitutional. Obviously, hearing and reading these names causes him great distress, right?

They might or might not, but I'd bet he stays away from Corpus Christi, Texas, and especially stays away from the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine bearing that name.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

My mistake, MobBoss, there were no atheists among the founders, you are correct there.

But the fact remains that the US state was certainly intended to stay secular, with most of the founders having been deists. From what I know of deism, it actually seems very opposed to religion, at least organised religion.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It think that reads a religion, as in any religion. Like a car, if you refer to a mitsubishi galant, or just a car, it's still a car. They refer to God, which is a religious figure, thus, it is referrring to a religion.

This is the problem. In law, you can make things come out to read however you want, if you're slick enough. My wife is a lawyer, and she makes an enormous deal out of every word in a sentence. When she's writing letters, she'll ask me for my opinion on whether the word "the" should be placed. It annoys the hell out of me. The prevailing legal opinion regarding the national motto is that it's neutral enough to avoid "an establishment of a religion". It doesn't matter that it affirms a belief in God, because it's not the belief the matters, but the endorsement of a religion.

Then again, the Supreme Court once interpreted a "separate but equal" ruling.

The problem is that the Founders are long dead, and so there's no way to ask them exactly what context they referred to when they wrote the 1st amendment. It may not even matter because they may not even agree on its application. It may matter even less because some will claim that the Constitution is a living document, not a religious text, so we should be free to interpret it for the times, even without this benefit. For all you know, in 100 years, people may suddenly come out and say "What's with all this 'God' nonsense? Since when have we been a superstitious nation" and reverse this process. After all, for the first 90 years of the country, the national motto was "E Pluribus Unum", and no one was unduly concerned of the lack of a "god" mentioned anywhere.

 

[.Shane.]

In part because Jefferson was the original author of the highly interpreted 'separation of church and state' part of the constitution.

Jefferson was in France when the Con. was written. You are thinking of Madison who was the primary influence on the 1st Amendment.

 

[MobBoss]

None of the founding fathers were athiest, but I contest your 'vast majority' analysis. The decision is of course yours to make, but here are some of their comments on religion and christianity for your consideration:

Instead of playing the quote game, of which I know I can find quotes from these same people referring to God and Christ, I will link this following discussion as I found it along the lines of what we are doing here: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_founding_fathers

And you only quote a handful of founding fathers. Need I remind you that there were 54 signatories and you mentionn 6. I would also argue that those you quoted are indeed deists as opposed to christian (although I dont think there is that much difference in a deist like Jefferson and a Christian to be honest).

George Washington:

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

From his prayer journal: “ O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”

Sounds like a Christian to me.

Madison:


“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

Franklin:


“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Jefferson was in France when the Con. was written. You are thinking of Madison who was the primary influence on the 1st Amendment.

Agreed, and without boring everyone to death with it and in answer to MobBoss's question Jefferson was a primary proponent for the church/state separation issue and when it comes to that issue he is often singled out. The founding fathers did a lot of talking amongst themselves, much as we do here, and their ideas were often passed around a bit for discussion. The constitution was very much a group effort and the ideas that were used to create it were discussed for many years prior to its actually being put down on paper.

 

[Hotpoint]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Although this story has gained widespread belief it's very likely not true.

Philander D. Chase, Senior Editor, The Papers of George Washington, University of Virginia, has stated that he knows of no contemporary accounts of George Washington appending those words to the oath of office. Charlene Bickford, Director, First Federal Congress Project, George Washington University, also confirms that there is no contemporary account of George Washington saying those words. In a 29 November 2004 email she wrote "In fact, the only contemporary account that repeats the oath, a letter of the French consul, Comte de Moustier, states only the constitutional oath. We now believe that Washington consciously (he rarely did something that wasn’t very calculated) repeated only the prescribed oath with no reference to God to show strict adherence to the Constitution." The French consul’s detailed account of the oath recitation also indicates that George Washington did not kiss the Bible.

One of the first claims that any president added those words to the oath are found in a book published in the 1856 (The Republican court; or, American Society in the Days of Washington, by Rufus Wilmot Griswold ), and in several books to follow, such as Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington (1857), Centennial Anniversary of Washington’s Inauguration (1892), and The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington (1892).

Those books, and others, mention various eye witnesses to the recitation of the presidential oath: Robert Livingston, Samuel Allyne Otis (1st Secretary of the Senate), Roger Sherman, Richard Henry Lee (a friend of George Washington), Alexander Hamilton, General Henry Knox, General Arthur St. Clair, Baron Steuben, John Adams, George Clinton (Governor of NY), Philip Schuyler, John Jay, Ebenezer Hazard, and Samuel Osgood, for example; all of them died before 1830.

It thus appears that "so help me God" was first appended to a presidential oath in 1881. The claims that George Washington added that phrase all appear to be repetitions of the dubious second hand contents of a single book about George Washington’s 1789 inaugural that was published 67 years after the fact.

http://www.wash.org/wlmay06_3_1.html

 

[tomsnowman123]

It matters not who founded the nation, it matters what peopled think now.

Bold by me. I dont see why so much importance is put on the founding fathers, that was over 2 centuries ago. Whether or not they were religious should have no affect on what we think, unless people want to stick to their [founding fathers] goals. But it's about now, not then.

 

[MobBoss]

Although this story has gained widespread belief it's very likely not true.

True or not, it in no way detracts from this other quotes concering Christ and his religious beliefs.

Unless of course you think what the man wrote in his own prayer journel to be false also.

 

[Hotpoint]

True or not, it in no way detracts from this other quotes concering Christ and his religious beliefs.

Unless of course you think what the man wrote in his own prayer journel to be false also.

The problem you have is that there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Washington was a Deist rather than a conventional Christian. Certainly his own pastor thought so.

It might be worth noting that while he attended service with his wife he did not take communion.

As for his writings...

Dr. Moncure D. Conway, who was once employed to edit a volume of Washington's letters, wrote an article entitled "The Religion of Washington," from which Remsberg quoted the following

In editing a volume of Washington's private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his time. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman's doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church.

In his many letters to his adopted nephew and younger relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity.

Washington had in his library the writings of Paine, Priestley, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, and other heretical works.

In a separate submission to the New York Times, Conway said that "Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist.... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him" (quoted by Remsberg).

The absence of Christian references in Washington's personal papers and conversation was noted by historian Clinton Rossiter

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

 

[Sahkuhnder]

...And you only quote a handful of founding fathers. Need I remind you that there were 54 signatories and you mentionn 6.

Most of the founding fathers believed religion was a private issue and didn't talk much about it at all. The six I quoted were just a sample of some famous names we all recognize that had a hand in the creation of our nation. Even I admit I wouldn't recognize the names of all 54 signatories.

--------

...(although I dont think there is that much difference in a deist like Jefferson and a Christian to be honest).

A deist does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a pretty big deal to christians. They are generally considered by christians to not be christians. The inquisition tortured and killed deists as heretics, which incidentally was still actively being done right next door in Mexico at the time of the birth of our nation.

--------

Instead of playing the quote game, of which I know I can find quotes from these same people referring to God and Christ, I will link this following discussion as I found it along the lines of what we are doing here: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_founding_fathers

Perhaps I'm weird but I prefer 'the quote game'. I could give you links to websites that agree with me and you could give me links to websites that agree with you, but what would that really show?

If we directly read the raw data (the quotes) ourselves then we can use logic to decide for ourselves and come to a much less 'biased by other people's opinions' result.

 

[IglooDame]

Bold by me. I dont see why so much importance is put on the founding fathers, that was over 2 centuries ago. Whether or not they were religious should have no affect on what we think, unless people want to stick to their [founding fathers] goals. But it's about now, not then.

We put so much importance on them precisely because they lived over 2 centuries ago - if they'd drafted the ground rules for a nation last month, we'd hardly pay them a second glance.

 

[tomsnowman123]

We put so much importance on them precisely because they lived over 2 centuries ago - if they'd drafted the ground rules for a nation last month, we'd hardly pay them a second glance.

But there's no way they could have known what the future would bring. To base almost everything in our government on a good, but slightly outdated piece of paper, and the founding fathers, is putting way too much emphasis on the past, when things were different when compared to nowadays.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Bold by me. I dont see why so much importance is put on the founding fathers, that was over 2 centuries ago. Whether or not they were religious should have no affect on what we think, unless people want to stick to their [founding fathers] goals. But it's about now, not then.

The relevance to today is that when the Courts make rulings based on the constitution the 'goals' if you will of the writers of the document are taken into account.

When the court decides 'how far' church and state should be separated they often ask 'how far did the people that wrote this mean for them to be separated?' Knowing the backgrounds of the authors can often shed light on their intentions as to what they meant when they wrote any given passage.

If we didn't know anything about you and just read your posts that would be fine. You added background information about your beliefs into your sig. Why? Was it in an effort to tell us your position and hopefully help us to better understand the 'meaning' of your posts, a kind of 'where you're coming from' with any given statement? The same approach applies to the founding fathers.

 

[IglooDame]

But there's no way they could have known what the future would bring. To base almost everything in our government on a good, but slightly outdated piece of paper, and the founding fathers, is putting way too much emphasis on the past, when things were different when compared to nowadays.

Simply put, track record. As yet they've collectively got one win (though the second quarter was pretty close in the mid-1860s). You, I, SCOTUS, and goodness knows the US electorate have no wins. That being the case, I'd rather take the FF's guidance as default and then adjust only as necessary. It becomes pretty clear looking back in history that adding "equality" for various categories of citizens is a necessary step, but not much else.