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.
Justice Brewer clarified that he was merely stating a fact that most people in America are Christian. Christian principles most certainly are not the fabric of American legal, political and social institution, nor are they the the source of law. Justice Brewer clearly stated in 1905 that such was not the case because of the Constitution.
Simply put if what you say were true we would be a Monarchy there are no bones about it. Republican government is 100% foreign to the Bible and is the product of traditions that already existed in Europe by the arrival of Christianity. In fact you can see a clear correlation between Christianity and a decline in said Republican institutions wherever Christianity spread since, Christian/Biblical government is anathema to Republicanism. There are only two forms of government endorsed in the bible. Monarchy and government by priest-king judges. Republicanism and having a Christian based government are 100% incompatible and that should be clear from the Bible.
I'm not making a value judgment on whether being a Christian nation was overall good, bad, mixed, unknowable for the development of the country. I'm stating an historical fact.
Brewer knew and acknowledged that the federal 'government' was not 'Christian' and was not there to establish a national church or promote any religion. He never retracted his view that America was Christian in the sense that its historical foundations and culture were based on Christian principles and traditions.
Maybe he was wrong, along with innumerable other Presidents, Congresses, state legislatures, judges, and others... and you are right.
Now, again, what would change if everybody agreed this was a christian nation???? I know, you just can't answer.....because nothing would've been different.....
No one has argued it would change anything, so the question is meaningless. What would change if everyone agreed that Miami Dolphins is the best football team? Nothing, but it's nice to know what people think about given topics.
There is no valid authority for the assertion that on nation was founded on Christian principles. It is unsupportable. The framers of the Constitution, did not intend to create a theocracy; they had exactly the opposite in mind. To preserve religious freedom, the government and law had to be secular, and not based on religious precepts. This is the fundamental principle separation of church and state upon which our religious freedom is secured.
So you two think it's god's will that babies, pregnant women, and all other types of"wrongdoing" humans get blown apart to keep you "safe".
Must make you so proud of this christian nation...
Now, again, what would change if everybody agreed this was a christian nation????
I know, you just can't answer.....because nothing would've been different.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No one has argued it would change anything, so the question is meaningless.""""
Yes, the question of whether this is a christian country or not is meaningless....so why don't you curb your Pride(one of those sin things) and let it go????
"""" What would change if everyone agreed that Miami Dolphins is the best football team? Nothing, but it's nice to know what people think about given topics.
I included the embarrassing (for you) part of my post you quoted...the rest of the post...
There is no valid authority for the assertion that on nation was founded on Christian principles. It is unsupportable. The framers of the Constitution, did not intend to create a theocracy; they had exactly the opposite in mind. To preserve religious freedom, the government and law had to be secular, and not based on religious precepts. This is the fundamental principle separation of church and state upon which our religious freedom is secured.
The framers clearly did not intend for the Federal government to be a theocracy. States were free to do as they chose. Public institutions were as well. IOW, the strict division between state and religion in public life and institutions is in historical perspective, a modern development.
The states are not free to do as they choose. Statutes in violation of the Establishment Clause are unconstitutional will be struck down. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Nor, is such assertion supported by historical record. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence - George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention - and James Madison, who drafted the Constitution (and the First Amendment) - all declared that our nation was not founded on religion. The separation of church and state is the founding principle in the protection of religious freedom as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and, moreover, the Supreme Court has so interpreted it. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
I included the embarrassing (for you) part of my post you quoted...the rest of the post...
Your question is meaningless to me because no one has argued it would change anything. Maybe someone else will find it more meaningful. I did not bother to respond to the other part of your post because that too was meaningless strawman nonsense.
The states are not free to do as they choose. Statutes in violation of the Establishment Clause are unconstitutional will be struck down. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Nor, is such assertion supported by historical record. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence - George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention - and James Madison, who drafted the Constitution (and the First Amendment) - all declared that our nation was not founded on religion. The separation of church and state is the founding principle in the protection of religious freedom as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and, moreover, the Supreme Court has so interpreted it. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
The 1st amendment is about the federal government, and was not designed to restrict the States rights as you suggest.
That is not correct. As the Supreme Court ruled in Everson:
"The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, quoted with approval by this Court, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730: 'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority.'
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." [footnotes omitted] Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." [footnotes omitted] Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al., 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).
I said it was not DESIGNED to restrict the states rights, and the wording specifically talks about "THE CONGRESS" aka the Federal Government. State sponsored religion continued in places like New Hampshipe for a long time after the Constitution became the supreme law, and it was not until the 14th amendment was added when the Supreme Court started to interprept the 1st amendment differently.
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.
