Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most active member of the constitutional convention, Gouverneur Morris, who spoke on the floor of the convention 173 times, and who who authored two works on the constitution two years after it was written says: "Religion is the only solid basis of good morals. Therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God".
Also keep in mind that Mr. Morris was the last man to sign the Constitution, and he was the individual who wrote the Constitution.
So, really, "Separation of Church and State". Really? I hope that you realize that the establishment clause was designed to prevent a state church and its resulting tax, as well as to prevent laws that mandated that people worship only one way. It never intended to mean that people within the government, or that the law itself, could not acknowledge God.
Let's look at some more of our nation's founding, for you will see that any supreme court judgment contrary to the original founding is indeed in direct opposition to its intent and, for all intensive purposes, should be null and void.
William Samuel Johnson, signer of the Constitution from Connecticut, and prominent speaker at public school graduations, stated at a public school graduation, "You this day have received a public education, the purpose whereof has been to qualify you better to serve your creator and your country....Your first great duties, if you are sensible, ar those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator, and Redeemer. Let these be ever-present to your minds and exemplified in your livers and conduct". Quoting from Acts 17:28, he said, "Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being. Remember, too, that you are redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the previous blood of the Son of God".
Founding Father, Reverend DOctor Withersoon is responsible for two American translations of the Bible.
Founding Father, Charles Thompson, responsible for the American translation of a Bible.
Founding Father, Benjamin Rush, was the founder of America's original Bible SOciety.
Founding Father, Francis Hopkinson, was a church music director and choir leader, and he authored the first purely American humn book.
Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Thomas McKean, had numeours cases come before him. ONe such, in Republica v. John Roberts. Upon reading the verdict, Justic McKean said, "John Roberts, this sentence means that you have very few days left to you upon this Earth. It behooves you, therefore, in this period of time, to make peace with your Maker. You need to find the remission of your sins through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. You need to call for someone who can lead you to that relationship with Jesus, whether it be a minister or a friend, or just the sacred Word of God. You are about to laucn out into eternity and you're not prepared to meet God. So let's work on that right now".
Founding Father, Abraham Baldwin, is the founder of the University of Georgia. He was the Chaplain in the American Revolution.
Founding Father, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John Langdon founded the American Bible Society.
Founding Father, James McHenry, is the founder of the Baltimore Bible Society, today known as the Maryland Bible Society.
Original Officers of the American Sunday School Union: Chief Justic of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall, and Supreme Court justice Bushrod Washington.
John Jay, Original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of the three founders most responsible for us having the U.S. Constitution, is the second president of the American Bible Society. John Jay declared, "Unto Him who's the Author and Giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son, blessed be HIs holy name"
Out of 250 founding fathers, all but a dozen were Christians.
This whole idea of separation of church and state, given the above, is hogwash, barring misinterpretation of the founders, which stated, makes those misinterpretations null and void.
Fuselage is correct in regard to:
"What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin."
You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. If one is not free to follow their own conscience and decide for themselves, then they are not free. Conversely, if everyone is forced to belong to a specific religion; meaning there is no freedom FROM religion, then there is also no freedom OF religion.
Kudos to that graduating Senior. He will accomplish much in his life.
Only if he is planning to become a preacher. Otherwise, he did a lousy job with his Valedictorian speech. He should have saved that plagiarized version for church.
I'm pretty sure Fuselage never claimed they couldn't. Here is what he said.
Personal speeches, however, clearly can include religion - since they are an expression of personal beliefs and not an endorsement on behalf of a public institution.
Seems to me that he is saying that they can acknowledge God. (not to speak for him)
George Washington appointed Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, in a LEGAL COMMENTARY on the Constitution, wrote, "Humanb law must rest its authority of that law which is divine". "Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, they are friends, they are mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other".
No one today claims to speak for God. Atheists have had prayer by individuals at ceremonies and on public grounds shut down. How do you figure that it's not permissable, under your reasoning, being that individuals are giving their personal beliefs when saying them?
Your point of view doesn't hold water, consider the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and various documents preceding the Constitution, which places a religious background. On top of that, the founding fathers spoke of Christ on the floors of Congress, legally wrote of Christ, and even spoke of Christ in handing down sentences.
Above, as stated by one of the first supreme court justices, you can't separate human law from divine law (God's Law), and this was in a legal commentary.
Atheists and those who are trying to eradicate religion completely from the public sphere, and unfortunately they've forced that issue, really don't have a leg to stand on when you examine our historical founding, its documents, and the words and legal operations of our founding fathers. It's so absurd that anyone would try to argue otherwise, when it is transparent as can be.
George Washington appointed Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, in a LEGAL COMMENTARY on the Constitution, wrote, "Humanb law must rest its authority of that law which is divine". "Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, they are friends, they are mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other".
No one today claims to speak for God. Atheists have had prayer by individuals at ceremonies and on public grounds shut down. How do you figure that it's not permissable, under your reasoning, being that individuals are giving their personal beliefs when saying them?
Your point of view doesn't hold water, consider the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and various documents preceding the Constitution, which places a religious background. On top of that, the founding fathers spoke of Christ on the floors of Congress, legally wrote of Christ, and even spoke of Christ in handing down sentences.
Above, as stated by one of the first supreme court justices, you can't separate human law from divine law (God's Law), and this was in a legal commentary.
Atheists and those who are trying to eradicate religion completely from the public sphere, and unfortunately they've forced that issue, really don't have a leg to stand on when you examine our historical founding, its documents, and the words and legal operations of our founding fathers. It's so absurd that anyone would try to argue otherwise, when it is transparent as can be.
The guy spits out the lord's prayer to spite non-Christians. What is so commendable about that?
The guy spits out the lord's prayer to spite non-Christians. What is so commendable about that?
Your confused. The words of the prayer itself is an act of humility and obedience. If said sincerely and in affirmation of the words themselves they cannot possibly be spat out in malice. Moreover it declares promise including forgiving those who trespass against us.
Education, culture is all about enhancing real individualism. The only way an institution can put up a rope against expression is if it interferes with human flourish. A platform either promotes human flourish or it denounce's human flourish. All schools should be allowed to govern in their own community within the bounds of human flourish and progress. Why...because its their children, their community their business and no one else's.
Today we have a bunch of couch potato squawkers making all the noise for things that are none of their buisness in this area and others.
The end product in culture is a failure. Thats a given ...so the boomers had their chance, wrecked everything and now its time politely said, to shut up.
The guy spits out the lord's prayer to spite non-Christians. What is so commendable about that?
The school tried to claim that he couldn't give his own speech, which is what valedictorians are generally allowed to do. Thus, they gave his some concocted speech that was not his own.
Jesus said that He will not acknowledge a person before His Father (God) in Heaven if someone is ashamed of him. While if the valedictorian may not be representing shame if he fell in line with the school's concocted speech, having no fear does show that he wasn't ashamed of God. Furthermore, Jesus issued the Great Commission, in which he instructs His followers to witness. Speaking at such a large gathering, one has the ability to reach a lot of people. Who knows, this could have planted a seed of faith in some attendees to the graduation. Thus, this helps fulfill the Commission, perhaps.
Even then, freedom of religion is a right allowed by the first amendment. The school had no right to limit a student's religious expression and, thus, was unconstitutional.
The school tried to claim that he couldn't give his own speech, which is what valedictorians are generally allowed to do. Thus, they gave his some concocted speech that was not his own.
Jesus said that He will not acknowledge a person before His Father (God) in Heaven if someone is ashamed of him. While if the valedictorian may not be representing shame if he fell in line with the school's concocted speech, having no fear does show that he wasn't ashamed of God. Furthermore, Jesus issued the Great Commission, in which he instructs His followers to witness. Speaking at such a large gathering, one has the ability to reach a lot of people. Who knows, this could have planted a seed of faith in some attendees to the graduation. Thus, this helps fulfill the Commission, perhaps.
Even then, freedom of religion is a right allowed by the first amendment. The school had no right to limit a student's religious expression and, thus, was unconstitutional.
Spouting the lord's prayer instead of giving a commencement speech is inappropriate. It was a public school graduation, not a church meeting.
Roy is going to Clemson University to study Computer Science. Hopefully, some reporter will find him in 4 years and re-interview him to see if he still prays for days before making important decisions.
The school tried to claim that he couldn't give his own speech, which is what valedictorians are generally allowed to do. Thus, they gave his some concocted speech that was not his own.
Jesus said that He will not acknowledge a person before His Father (God) in Heaven if someone is ashamed of him. While if the valedictorian may not be representing shame if he fell in line with the school's concocted speech, having no fear does show that he wasn't ashamed of God. Furthermore, Jesus issued the Great Commission, in which he instructs His followers to witness. Speaking at such a large gathering, one has the ability to reach a lot of people. Who knows, this could have planted a seed of faith in some attendees to the graduation. Thus, this helps fulfill the Commission, perhaps.
Even then, freedom of religion is a right allowed by the first amendment. The school had no right to limit a student's religious expression and, thus, was unconstitutional.
You know, when you don't know what you're talking about, it's always best to not make up 'facts' just so you have something to post. From an interview with the valedictorian in question:
Quote:
The school board had told me prior to the speech that I was not allowed to have any type of religious references and that the text would have to be preapproved by the board before the ceremony. So I turned in the exact same speech I was planning to deliver, except that I included God in the one I actually gave. All the approved speeches were put in a binder on the podium, so I snuck my speech in the sleeve of my shirt under my robe and took it out when I got to the microphone. I told everyone that our principal had approved my speech and we wouldn't be able to use that one, so I ripped it out of the binder and brought out the other one.
George Washington appointed Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, in a LEGAL COMMENTARY on the Constitution, wrote, "Humanb law must rest its authority of that law which is divine". "Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, they are friends, they are mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other".
No one today claims to speak for God. Atheists have had prayer by individuals at ceremonies and on public grounds shut down. How do you figure that it's not permissable, under your reasoning, being that individuals are giving their personal beliefs when saying them?
I will restate my position when you move from opposite land. When one argues that people may express themselves and you read it's not permissable then we are in different dimensions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From an interview with the valedictorian in question:
