Establishment of Government Religion?

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Hey Dale!  et. al.

This silly us vs them conservative vs liberal mindset is so oversimplified 
and tiresome, don't you think?  I dislike all stereotyping labels across the 
board.  Please don't lump me into any "group."  I think for myself and I'm 
proud of it.

You state that "today's Christian political activists.... are simply 
maintaining that you cannot have good government with out religion."  First, 
I do not think you can speak for all of today's Christian activists, some of 
whom do want the Federal government to officially make the USA a Christian 
nation.  But your statement dodges the issue.
If the religion was Buddhist or Islamic, and the good government was 
following the principles and practices of these two religious points of 
view, who do not believe Jesus was the divine Son of God, I imagine you 
would be very unhappy with this form of "good government with religion."  I 
think you are trying to dance around what you really want so it does not 
seem you are trying to impose you religion via government on other people 
who do not believe in your religion.  You want your religion expressed in 
the government, not anyone else's.  This is why I think the government 
should stay out of religion as much as it can.  Every religion wants to 
impose their viewpoint, and government must be fair an impartial to avoid 
the heavy hand of the law being used to suppress religious activity and 
thought.

Ted

>From: "Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Avoiding the question, Contradictions: Establishment of 
>Government Religion?
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 21:29:16 -0700
>
>Ted Moffett asks:
>
> > Do you support establishing an official government religion?
>
>I won't attempt to answer for Doug Jones, but let me ask you a question.
>
>How many of the States in the USA had *an official State religion* when the
>federal constitution was ratified?
>
>Answer: nine (9).
>Anglicanism in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia
>Congregationalism in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut
>"Protestant religions" in New York
>
>Why is this important?  Because  The pluralism of the colonies was a
>pluralism among the numerous *Christian* sects.
>
>The founding fathers well understood national religions. Europe was full of
>them:
>England: Anglican
>Germany: Lutheran
>Switzerland: Reformed
>France: Roman Catholic
>Scotland: Presbyterian
>
>So the First Amendment was clearly written: "*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"
>
>There is *no* mention of the words Church, State, or separation in the 
>First
>Amendment or in the body of the Constitution. The prohibition is addressed
>to *Congress*.  Individual states and governmental institutions are not
>included in the amendment's prohibition.
>
>There is no mention of a freedom *from* religion. The First Amendment 
>offers
>no support of a position that would outlaw religion just because it exists
>or offends those of a different religion or those who have no religion at
>all (agnostics or atheists).
>
>A number of the states had established churches.  Some of the framers were
>concerned that the federal government would establish a national Church to
>be funded by tax dollars. The concern was that this national Church
>(Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregational) would disestablish the existing
>state churches.
>
>The First Amendment was designed to protect the states against the national
>(federal) government. Justice Joseph Story, a Supreme Court justice of the
>nineteenth century, offers the following commentary on the amendment's
>original meaning:
>"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less 
>to
>advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
>Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects
>[denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment
>which would give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national
>government."
>
>The word "establishment," as used in the First Amendment, means recognition
>by civil government of a single denomination as the official Church.  The
>amendment does not prohibit *the establishment* of religion in general, but
>rather *an establishment* of a particular federal Christian denomination,
>which our founders called a "sect." There is nothing in the First Amendment
>restricting the states.  The restriction resides solely with Congress.
>
>Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stated: "The Framers intended the
>Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a
>'national' one.  The clause was also designed to stop the Federal 
>government
>from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over
>others."
>
>Isn't it rather strange that on September 24, 1789, the same day that it
>approved the First Amendment, Congress called on President Washington to
>proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving?
>
>Today's Christian political activists are not calling on the State to
>establish churches. Rather, they are simply maintaining that we cannot have
>good government without religion, the very principle the Northwest 
>Ordinance
>declares. The First Amendment provides a legal separation between Church 
>and
>State: not a moral nor a spiritual separation. There is no reason, under 
>the
>Constitution of the United States, why the principles of Christianity 
>cannot
>pervade the laws and institutions of the United States of America
>
>Looking forward to seeing how the liberals on the list will twist my words!
>:)
>
>Dale




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx