The Six Commandments?

[Sojourner55]

As usual, the ACLU is working hard to eradicate any artifacts that represent the God of the Jews and Christians. In this case, it's the display of the Ten Commandments in a public school in Virginia. A local judge has suggested a compromise: delete the first four commandments, which make reference to God. I don't think so.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-2892...1A617F1371193F

[HoboTone]

We cant actually have Christianity in schools. Let's make everyone act like Christians, but not be Christians.......that's a great idea!

[Sojourner55]

Yeah, let's have God's commandments--just without any reference to God Himself.

[Free Indeed]

Yeah, let's have God's commandments--just without any reference to God Himself.

If a government entity recognizes the God of the Old Testament, it has ipso facto violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

How would you like it if a Hindu teacher in a public school told your kids that they shalt have no gods before Vishnu? You probably wouldn't like it very much, and you'd have a reason to be upset about it. Same thing.

[John 8:32]

Many have already deleted them all, after all the law is done away. Those who have not deleted them all have at the very least deleted the fourth commandment.

[Sojourner55]

If a government entity recognizes the God of the Old Testament, it has ipso facto violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Why didn't the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution know that? The 10 commandments--along with the Bible--were held in great esteem by the US government for a very long time before a few individuals decided they "violated" the Constitution. And the real "no-brainer" here is the cerebral deficiency demonstrated in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment. I would challenge you to read an article I wrote about that issue, http://bibleforums.org/content.php/162-The-Wall and get back to me.

Yes, we have to abide by the decisions made by those stalwart arbiters within the highest US court, but they were dead wrong on the merits of that case--which was built on an obvious twisting of Thomas the Jefferson's informal statement in personal letter--ironically promising the Danbury Baptists Association that the Constitution would protect the Church from any infringement on their public worship. The consensus of opinion among many great Americans--including past Supreme Court justices, will attest to that miscarriage of justice.

[slightlypuzzled]

If a government entity recognizes the God of the Old Testament, it has ipso facto violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

How would you like it if a Hindu teacher in a public school told your kids that they shalt have no gods before Vishnu? You probably wouldn't like it very much, and you'd have a reason to be upset about it. Same thing.

Maybe that is the problem, since schools became a 'Government Entity', they have just lost their way to teach...

[NewInHim]

Maybe that is the problem, since schools became a 'Government Entity', they have just lost their way to teach...

Exactly! Maybe the government shouldn't be in charge of educating our children. They aren't educating mine! In the Government that exists in my house, it is perfectly legal for us to teach about Jesus every day and at all times. I like our government!

[Fenris]

If a government entity recognizes the God of the Old Testament, it has ipso facto violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Erm, it is certainly debatable whether the existence of some replica the ten commandments is 'a government entity recognizing God".

[Dravenhawk]

Having taken great satisfaction in themselves in eradicating God from the minds of men disaster comes sweeping upon them and the first thing that comes from their mouths in deaths moment .... GOD SAVE US!!

Dravenhawk

[Free Indeed]

Why didn't the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution know that?

They did.

Yes, we have to abide by the decisions made by those stalwart arbiters within the highest US court, but they were dead wrong on the merits of that case--which was built on an obvious twisting of Thomas the Jefferson's informal statement in personal letter--ironically promising the Danbury Baptists Association that the Constitution would protect the Church from any infringement on their public worship. The consensus of opinion among many great Americans--including past Supreme Court justices, will attest to that miscarriage of justice.

Separation of church and state is not a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, it is the very cornerstone of freedom. Our forefathers knew that very well. Jefferson's "personal" letter, along with other founders' "personal letters", clearly demonstrate the original intent of the framers. They had rebelled against the English government, who used (and continues to use) public tax money to support the official church.

[Sojourner55]

They did.

Separation of church and state is not a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, it is the very cornerstone of freedom. Our forefathers knew that very well. Jefferson's "personal" letter, along with other founders' "personal letters", clearly demonstrate the original intent of the framers. They had rebelled against the English government, who used (and continues to use) public tax money to support the official church.

Dead wrong. The modern perception of the separation of Church and state was predicated on a twisting of the meaning of Jefferson's words. No, The republic was never designed as a theocratic institution, nor was there to be one religion favored over another. The founders believed that individuals had the right to believe in the god of their choice, or no god at all. The intent of the first amendment was to ensure that: 1). no particular religion would be sponsored by the government, 2). that the government could not infringe in any way on the practice of religion anywhere, anytime. The latter clause has been ignored and essentially discarded. The idea of restricting religion from the public square or government property is a modern invention, and was not the intent of the founders, nor was it practiced during Colonial America. And that is a matter of historical fact, not personal opinion.

There is a tremendous difference between a state religion--as existed in England, and the free flow of religious freedom in the public square, and among elected officials who embraced faith as part of their daily lives and public service. You can deny it all you want, but Christianity and the Bible were ubiquitous and prevalent throughout Colonial America. It came here with the Pilgrims, blossomed under the Puritans, and was embraced by a majority of colonists. The historical record attests to that fact, and it was not until the mid-1800's that anti-religious sentiment began to grow.

The US Capitol building--government property--was used as a church until after the Civil War for Pete's sake. Taxpayer money was used to buy Bibles--even when money was hard to come by during the Revolutionary War, and the Bible was used extensively in public schools throughout the early colonial era. In 1892, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of a Church based on the view of the Court that the US is a Christian nation! (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892). Does that sound like the founders were trying to wall religion off from the government to you? Moreover, Congress to this day, opens with prayer, and many statesmen, past and present, have expressed the belief that the principles espoused in the Bible are a foundation for any lasting success of the new republic--including the first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, and more recent Justice, Earl Warren.

KT, Neither you nor the revisionists you agree with can change the facts of history, and only by twisting Jefferson's words were the God haters able to convince the Supreme Court that the real intent of the first amendment was to shut religion off from the public square. His true intent should be clear to anyone reading his letter to the Danbury Baptists, since his reply was in response to a concern about the government intruding into the realm of religious freedom. Believe what you want, but you cannot change the facts.

[Vhayes]

The US Capitol building--government property--was used as a church until after the Civil War for Pete's sake.

What denomonation?

Taxpayer money was used to buy Bibles--even when money was hard to come by during the Revolutionary War,

linky, please. I thought the money was a loan and it was due to price gouging by merchants on imported bibles. By controlling the purchase, they could prevent gouging.

and the Bible was used extensively in public schools throughout the early colonial era.

Yep. Because they were common to most households.

In 1892, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of a Church based on the view of the Court that the US is a Christian nation! (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892). Does that sound like the founders were trying to wall religion off from the government to you?

1892 is not anywhere NEAR 1776. Are you certain the Founders had much to do with that decision?

Moreover, Congress to this day, opens with prayer, and many statesmen, past and present, have expressed the belief that the principles espoused in the Bible are a foundation for any lasting success of the new republic--including the first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, and more recent Justice, Earl Warren.

Yep - and those prayers include prayers to Allah. What is your point?

KT, Neither you nor the revisionists you agree with can change the facts of history, and only by twisting Jefferson's words were the God haters able to convince the Supreme Court that the real intent of the first amendment was to shut religion off from the public square. His true intent should be clear to anyone reading his letter to the Danbury Baptists, since his reply was in response to a concern about the government intruding into the realm of religious freedom. Believe what you want, but you cannot change the facts.

I'm not KT but I will ask you - was John Adams a Founding Father? Was he a Christian? Was he a fervent believer in the Lord and probably one of the most pious if not THE most pious of all the Founders?

Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli states:

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 [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

This Treaty was signed by Adams in 1797. He also signed the Declaration of Independence and helped craft the language of the Constitution. My guess is, he would KNOW what the intent of the Constitution was. But even if he was misguided, the ENTIRE senate ratified the Treaty unanimously.

I would also ask that you refrain from accusing people of siding with "God Haters" and revisionists.

[Bandit]

Okay guys, let's not turn this thread into a bashing of our current President. He is not trying to make himself God, so let's not even start down this path.

[Sojourner55]

What denomonation?

Ah, VHayes, ever the Devil's advocate. I don't know for sure, but I believe the early Church in the colonies was primarily Anglican. Yet I would think the services were probably geared more toward preaching embraced by all of the various denominations, with a heavy emphasis on praise and worship, rather than sectarian doctrine. But don't discount the main point: a government building was officially approved as a church building by both the House and Senate.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90

linky, please. I thought the money was a loan and it was due to price gouging by merchants on imported bibles. By controlling the purchase, they could prevent gouging.

No, it had to do with a British shipping blockade in 1777. The people petitioned Congress to find a way to either import Bibles from somewhere, or else the materials necessary for the colonists to print their own. While the resolution was passed, money allocated, and Bibles were ordered by Congress, there is no indication that they ever actually arrived. But then, I suppose that's understandable with the war going on, huh?

The point is: Congress had an active hand in trying to secure Bibles--which obviously flies in the face of the modern revisionist perception of the Colonial government being vehemently opposed to the propagation of religion. Incidentally, four years after the aforementioned petition, Congress unanimously approved the printing of the Aitkin Bible, the first to be printed in the US. Again, the Bible was openly advocated by the government of the United States.

Today, not only would our government shrink in horror from sponsoring the printing of Bibles, but routinely sanctions the filing of endless lawsuits over even voluntary displays of the 10 commandments, Nativity Scenes and crosses in public places--despite their having been in place for a century or more, in some cases. A drastic change in the status quo, between early America and modern America , wouldn't you say? That's the point. Here's the "linky" you asked for:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90

Yep. Because they were common to most households.

You're missing the point that Bibles even were a fundamental part of public schools. That schoolchildren grew up reading the Bible--with the government's blessings--is the point; and remarkable by today's standards and government policies. Being saturated with the word of God from childhood is one of the reasons so many early Americans grew up as Godly people, something that is sadly missing in American society today.

1892 is not anywhere NEAR 1776. Are you certain the Founders had much to do with that decision?

Again, you're missing the point: revisionists attempt to portray the wall of separation as having been firmly in place since America's founding, and religion eschewed in the public square. Yet, as late as 1892, the view existed among even members of the Supreme Court, that the USA is "a Christian nation." Whether or not you and I agree with that assessment, is immaterial and beside the point.

Yep - and those prayers include prayers to Allah. What is your point?

My point is: the same religious activity that is expressly forbidden in public schools and other government-funded institutions is employed in opening every session of Congress, where the laws of the land are designed and drafted--including the one that forbids prayer in government-run institutions. Does that not seem just a tad incongruous?

I'm not KT but I will ask you - was John Adams a Founding Father? Was he a Christian? Was he a fervent believer in the Lord and probably one of the most pious if not THE most pious of all the Founders?

Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli states:
"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 [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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."

This Treaty was signed by Adams in 1797. He also signed the Declaration of Independence and helped craft the language of the Constitution. My guess is, he would KNOW what the intent of the Constitution was. But even if he was misguided, the ENTIRE senate ratified the Treaty unanimously.[/QUOTE]

You need to do a little research on that treaty, and understand the context of Adam's statement, and why the treaty was written: Muslim pirates were targeting US merchant ships ay a time before we had a real Navy to protect them. The Musims took he position that the US, as a Christian nation, was subject to the jizyah tax. Adams and Jefferson were arguing that the US was not in fact, a de facto Christian nation, so our ships should not be attacked, or the US targeted.

Rather than ignore the purpose for Adam's statement, and use it to make a point, you might want to ponder just what characteristics were being espoused by a supposedly religion-free government that would lead the Muslims to presume it was a Christian nation in the first place. Maybe there was a perception among the Muslims that many in this country--including its leaders--believed in the God of the Christians and Jews, rather than Allah, and held to the principles based on the teachings of Jesus. And maybe by stating the fact the US is not a theocracy (as Muslim nations are), the founders sought to dissuade the Muslims from attacking our ships on religious principle.

While you're pondering that concept, ponder these other quotes by John Adams, which better exemplify his personal beliefs about God and government:

"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation."

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity."

Hmm. Sounds like Adams not only believed that the Christian faith was foundational to both our right to, and securing of freedom, and dispensing benevolent justice and governance to the republic, but also to the whole world. And he is by no means alone among the founding fathers on that position. The clear words of many of them remain with us today--thank God, which express a deep abiding faith in God and commitment to Him, as paramount to any lasting success of this American system we live under. Sadly, that principle is slipping away from us today, and we have allowed God to be banished from society in the name of diversity. As a direct result, immorality and godlessness is spreading over us like a harbinger of doom.

We're not a "Christian nation." Not in principle, and God knows, not in practice. The US is not a theocracy, and was neither so designed, nor represented. Yet, it is an irrefutable fact that the principles founded on the teachings of the Bible--righteousness before God, faith, truth, honor, and other precepts espoused therein, are the bedrock upon which the founders knowingly built this country's foundation. God is invoked in Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so it's pointless to try and say He had nothing to do with our history. This truth is all I'm trying to represent here.

I would also ask that you refrain from accusing people of siding with "God Haters" and revisionists.

Those who misrepresent the facts about the godly principles embraced by so many of the founders, leaders and citizens of colonial America are indeed justly defined as "revisionists." Get over it.

And I did not accuse anyone of being a God-hater except those who have fought so hard to remove God's influence from American society--when it so clearly has always been a good thing for the nation. Removing preaching, prayer, Bible-reading, the 10 commandments, Nativity Scenes and crosses from the public square--when they stood for so long, makes you wonder what motivation is really behind these actions--and what kind of spirit.