National Day of Prayer is about American Beginnings … So, What are the Courts Saying about America’s Future?
by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)President Obama made the right decision to appeal the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, which held that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
In so doing, the judge substituted her opinion for 135 calls to prayer by presidents of the United States, the actions of virtually every Congress that has been in existence both before and after the Constitution was written, and the actions of all 50 state legislatures. Her decision is a part of the continuing assault on America’s religious heritage. America’s Judeo-Christian principles are so interwoven in a tapestry of freedom and liberty, that to begin to unravel one is to unravel the other.
Our Founding Fathers spoke eloquently not only about their personal belief in God, but also about how our nascent nation was called to a higher purpose by God. Out of respect for that purposeful birth, the first act of the U.S. Congress was to appoint a minister to lead the legislators in prayer. And, in deep and abiding faith, Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have called upon God for his protection, mercy, and guidance.
These acts are instructive; they show how deep America’s religious roots run. The Declaration could not have been clearer: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”
The freedoms and liberties that we enjoy are granted by God. They are not man-made, nor government-granted. Man or State may shackle us, may separate us from our freedom; but ultimately, we will reclaim what is rightfully ours. Government’s purpose is to preserve man’s rights and when government treads on those rights, it breaks a sacred covenant. Then, as the Declaration states, it is the people’s “right, it is their duty” to reclaim what God has given.
Judge Crabb acknowledged America’s religious heritage; but she dismissed it. She would not even grant that the National Day of Prayer was an act of “ceremonial deism,” a Supreme Court construct that states that rote repetition of religious phrases are more ceremonial than meaningful and therefore not in violation of the Constitution.
She would have been well-advised to read a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In a stunning judicial victory this March, American school children won the right to recite the Pledge in its entirety. What made this victory so stunning was not that the courts permitted use of this phrase in this daily educational ritual. Courts had done so before. It was not even that this time the court in question was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – notorious for its liberal activism from the bench.
What made this victory so extraordinary was the court’s reason for affirming the right to say “under God” in the Pledge. In past cases, the courts had granted this right because they said the phrase had been so robotically applied throughout the years that it was devoid of religious meaning. This time, in this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the right to say “under God” precisely because of their meaning.
Borrowing the argument presented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the court stated that those two words are chock-full of meaning, a bountiful statement of American history and philosophy, and that is why they can and should be a part of our nation’s pledge. As the Becket Fund stated in its brief, “It is uncontestable that since even before the Declaration of Independence, it has been an important part of our national ethos that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State.”
The religious underpinnings of our nation are not evident simply because the Founding Fathers wrote about their belief in God – although there is more than ample evidence of their own faith. Our nation’s essence is that rights belong to the individual, not the collective; that our rights are God-given and not simply granted by the government; that our rights are inalienable. And that is all the proof needed to say America is truly one nation under God.
Our Founding Fathers knew the best way to preserve our God-given rights was not to restrict the entrance to the marketplace of ideas, but rather to keep it wider. They did not want faith and religion to control or dominate that marketplace, but they realized faith and religion must have a seat at the table.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
275 Comments
Very nicely stated Congressman Forbes.
Congressman Forbes has a 96% approval rating from the American Conservative Union. Your anger is misdirected.
. http://67.20.95.56/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/20...
Congressman Forbes has a 96% approval rating from the American Conservative Union. Your anger is misdirected.
. http://67.20.95.56/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/20...
Congressman Forbes has a 96% approval rating from the American Conservative Union. Your anger is misdirected.
. http://67.20.95.56/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/20...
And your point is… that you aren't very smart?
Or that Obama's not really a revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist, atheist, socialist, Muslim, Indonesian, Kenyan radical dictator?
Besides, aren't objectivists supposed to be atheists?
Because prayer is a religious act?
From a 1964 interview in Playboy magazine:
Playboy:
Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Rand:
Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.
No, it doesn't.
Who's quotation is that?
No , it just means that he needs to have free prayer so he can pray, when he has to, according to Muslim tradition/law. Prayer is a big part of Muslim life. DUHHHH. He is probably thinking of having his own day of prayer set up in amerikka.
No , it just means that he needs to have free prayer so he can pray, when he has to, according to Muslim tradition/law. Prayer is a big part of Muslim life. DUHHHH. He is probably thinking of having his own day of prayer set up in amerikka.
No , it just means that he needs to have free prayer so he can pray, when he has to, according to Muslim tradition/law. Prayer is a big part of Muslim life. DUHHHH. He is probably thinking of having his own day of prayer set up in amerikka.
Why should anyone care what the Supreme Court says? They've gotten it wrong before and they'll get wrong again and again. Besides, we don't need the Supreme Court's or Congress's permission to hold a National Day of Prayer.
And you constantly quoting Ayn Rand suggests you are, in fact, a Randroid.
To Rep. Randy Forbes, what you will say about Project 2048 – the UN goal to draft an international framework to force all the countries' courts to ENFORCE human rights??? This can mean and affect America's future, too.
http://74.220.219.58/~drafting/2048-project
2048 is not new, it is part of the ongoing evolution of enforceable human rights documents. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." 2048 collects people's dreams about how humanity can live together in peace and prosperity, with protection for our environment, based upon a set of legally enforceable universal human rights. 2048 is the next step as humanity gradually puts its social contract in writing. The Internet is the key, our website enables our Project.
Let's all sing Kumbaya daily! It's the human right law!
But there is One at that table that sees everything and will not let a praying America fall.
It's from the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)
The constitution is actually rather simple, four pages, in plain language.
It was written to be read and understood by the people, not just legal experts.
I also couldn't give two craps if you trust my opinion.
How do you like that?
Noam Chomsky, you so crazy.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [
"Please note also that the same people who CREATED our Constitution also created the National Day of Prayer"
The National Day of Prayer was established in 1952, so please forgive me for doubting your statement.
Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
You don't understand the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
A National Day of Prayer doesn't establish any specific religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion. The "separation of church and state" does not exist beyond the point that the Federal Government cannot establish that the United States of America is a Protestant or Catholic of Church of Elvis State. The Constitution does establish, by the use of the singular "God", that the United States IS based on the a Judeo-Christian religions but again does not establishes a specific religion.
Simply put, you have the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion.
John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." –October 11, 1798
I'm reminded of a Monty Python bit right now…
The American navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. USS Argus, USS Chesapeake, USS Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Intrepid, USS Philadelphia and USS Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.
Wow, no U.S. v. Islam EVER – HUH? It only took a FEW YEARS into the history of the United States to be FIGHTING ISLAM.
Islam is a cult of PIGS.
DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT
DROPPINGS!
No it doesn't.
Still, it doesn't mean that we are a Christian nation. Or Moslem. Or a Scientology one.
SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME
PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
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., Jan. 1, 1802
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
– John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
– John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
– John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785, quoted from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom (1991)
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
– John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
The frightful engines of ecclesiastical councils, of diabolical malice, and Calvinistical good-nature never failed to terrify me exceedingly whenever I thought of preaching.
– John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, October 18, 1756, explaining why he rejected the ministry
I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
– John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"
When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.
– John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits…. Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum.
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 5, 1816
Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
– John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
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, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.
– John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (1958), p. 108, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests.
– John Adams, Diary and Autobiography
What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.
– John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
– John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure … with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes … or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude….
Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve … the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers.
– John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765
We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu.
– John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. From Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 234. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church."
Again, you have the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion. Since non-religion is the absence of religion it is therefore not protected.
I'm sorry but the word "God" is not in the Constitution, nor creator, Jesus, Abraham, ect.
However the word "Lord" is used but only to denote the date (in the year of our Lord), which was a common practice at this time. It is exactly the same as using the abbreviation A.D. after a date to signify that the event took place in "common era" (C.E). In any cause it was used in the Signatory section, not making any legal relevance to a "Lord" beyond a reference to an established dating system.
You can correctly point out that "creator" and "Jesus" have been used in other founding father's documents, but the constitution isn't one of them.
I stand corrected on that and I was aware, someone replied before I could corrected it.
"To be is to do"-Socrates
"To do is to be"-Sartre
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra
"Scooby Dooby Do"-Scooby Do
"Yaba Daba Doo!"-Fred Flintstone
Obviously, the President's support for a National Day of Prayer is a cover for some nefarious plot, most likely involving Griff Jenkins, Jenkins' French architect glasses, and a stick of butter. I'll bet The Dick Armey is in on this somehow.
We went over 150 years without a "national day of prayer," so we will be just fine without it. Who needs government to declare a day of prayer? It is unnecessary.
This is from the Treaty of Tripoli, not one of our founding documents, entered into under duress as the Barbary Pirates had seized our ships, their cargoes, and the crews and were demanding payment of a tribute. This has nothing to do with the founding of this nation. The Bey of Tripoli broke this Treaty 4 yrs. later and it was replaced with another that began like all other treaties this country entered into; "In the name of the Blessed Holy Trinity"….
In Trinity vs. US, (1892) the S. Ct. reviewed every one of our founding documents and unanimously concluded that we are a religious people, A CHRISTIAN NATION. I personally followed the steps taken by the S. Ct. and came up with the same inescapable onclusion.
Just because they haven't established ONE, SPECIFIC religion, doesn't mean that they are not establishing religion in a general sense.
It established the RELIGIOUS act of prayer as a "National Day of Prayer."
You are very wrong Dee. We went over 150 years as a country without a "National Day of Prayer."
Romeo, explain how an official national day of prayer is unconstitutional
It is not a clear as you try to make it:
At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state.
Maybe you should prove the existence of your "god" before you try to make government policy based on your belief. When has your God protected our country? 9/11? 12/7/1941? During the treasonous southern rebellion against the United States?
This administration, the MSM, and the courts, are moving us towards Dhimmitude, subservience, to Sharia Law.
I'm sick and tired of activist judges. IMO, U.S. District Court Judge Crabb is incompetent, and should under Article III to the Constitution, be removed. How many more times are inept freaks like this going to be allowed to chip away at, and usurp the Constitution?
[...] » National Day of Prayer is about American Beginnings … So, What … [...]
And what happens when we elect people that want to govern based on their particular religion? One says, "Well, my God wants us to do this," while the other says, "My God doesn't approve of that." We should not be governing on religious beliefs since they are all faith and cannot be proven.
Hmmmmmm. That makes sense…..Let me pray about that.
Not even the "the atheist, socialist, Muslim, Indonesian, Kenyan President who is also member of a radical Chicago church" Barack Obama is stupid enough to play with prayer in this country–certainly not now. If he thought he'd get away with it, I've no doubt he'd drop kick that liberty, but I'm sure he was aptly warned by his advisors to leave that be.
A short prayer for Odin, lord of the wild hunt
Blue cloak swirling in the storm,
Hat pulled low over empty eye,
Ravens at your shoulder,
Wolves at your feet,
Lord of the wild hunt
Who rides Sleipnir across the stormy skies,
With warrior-women armed for battle,
Protect me from my enemies.
You grasp my fate in your fist,
Turn that fate into paths of success.
re: "Our Founding Fathers knew the best way to preserve our God-given rights was not to restrict the entrance to the marketplace of ideas, but rather to keep it wider. They did not want faith and religion to control or dominate that marketplace, but they realized faith and religion must have a seat at the table."
So I take it that Congressman Forbes will shortly be introducing a resolution calling for a National Day of Unbelief, or perhaps National Freethought Day, or National Atheism Day. After all, we wouldn't want to restrict nonbelievers' entrance into the marketplace of ideas.
True, but that's a long way from the government establishing a religion, like the Church of the United States or something like that. A National Day of Prayer is no more than acknowledgment of religion and of the national religious heritage.
As long as i'm free to ignore it then it's fine by me…
"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."
And again, applies to RELIGION, non-religion IS NOT a religion and is NOT protected and, as you can see from the quote of the First Amendment, IS NOT MENTIONED.
You have the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion. The National Day of Prayer does not endorses any specific religion thus does not violate the Constitution.
The Constitution specifically bans the official establishment of religion.
"Islam is a cult of PIGS."
Its a good thing you aren't full of hatred!
"Atheism is a gateway drug to totalitarianism."
Not in Iran. In Iran, our enemy, its the religious fundamentalists who rule the totalitarian state.
[...] » National Day of Prayer is about American Beginnings … So, What … [...]
@Romeo13 Oh Romeo, Oh Romeo, where art thou? or where has thou been?
A National Day of prayer is NOT against the Constitution… Have you even studied the history of this country, or the Constitution or Bill of Rights from the perspective of those days?
What you say is nonsense.
Have you read all the National Day's of Prayer, and National Day's of Thanksgivings that were called for by the President and Congress since the days of the Continental Congress?
Are you aware that during the 1800's the Christian Association including members of Congress used to hold their meetings in the House of Representative's??
Have you ever read the US Supreme Court's decision of 1892 when the Court declared that this IS a Christian Nation? Read the Courts words in "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States", 143 U.S. 457 (1892) from the last paragraph of page 465 to the end of page 471…. at:http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the
Page 143 U. S. 466
ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith," etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:
"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires."
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence
(continuing Trinity vs. United States, 1892)
Page 143 U. S. 467
so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs."
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:
"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,"
etc.
Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,"
etc.;
"And for the
Page 143 U. S. 468
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:
"We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,"
etc.
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:
"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he
(continuing from the US Supreme Court in Trinity vs United Sates, 1892)
Page 143 U. S. 471
subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."
And in the famous case of @ 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
.
But you were 'trying' to prove that we're not (a Christian nation) with one quote. One insufficient quote.
The foundation of this country is built upon Christian values, FS. Our Bill of Rights and our Constitution reflect so. In addition, our Founders left behind countless writings that also allude to our strong need and dependence upon Providence. As a matter of fact, our Founders warned us of what could happen if we turned away from our dependence on the Almighty.
There's little room for 'mercy' in Islam, whereas mercy is the basis of Christianity. You ought to keep that in mind, FS.
Either that, or he's afraid he'd tick off his Jewish and Muslim supporters, not to mention the members of Black churches that voted for him in record numbers.
JamesB is a lover of freedom and liberty. He is a passionate patriot. Those who wield the most influence, whether through persuasion, or coercion and intimidation, ARE the face of Islam. Cult of PIGS? And your evidence contrary to his assertion is… what exactly? When "radical" Christians rear their ugly heads in America, we ridicule, ostracize and shout them down (rightly so). Where is this happening in the 57 states of brotherly love? I know a handful of Muslims, and I actually trust a few of them. Others? I am not sure. Every large group/nation/ideology contains elements that are "supremacists". Sadly, Islam's "supremacists" meet little resistance within their own population. There will be war until they have had a sufficient amount of pain inflicted on them. Isn't that the lesson from the history JamesB has articulated here so well?
So then I suppose you're against a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., who was a member of the clergy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Notice how fast they violated the spirit and terms of the treaty. Perhaps in light of the fact that Islam is historically responsible for the initiation of hostilities against America, more people will support the necessary smack-down they seem to require at this juncture of our "relationship". Rational capacity is required by both parties if a solution based on reason is to be achieved. I think one party is guilty of evasion here, and it ain't us…
Stay home and wank. That way you won't be "offended".
Ya, I am to murderous Jihadist Muslim PIGS killing Americans. You support the same..and…?
Take a look at the last 13 words of the article: ….but they realized faith and religion must have a seat at the table….. The author does not specify or define what his definition of faith is.
Faith in God and faith in religion are two entirely different things, in my opinion. Faith in God is what it is and faith in religion is faith in man because religion comes from man, not God. If religion is Godly, how could it be subverted by the social justice/progressive movement? If religion is Godly, how could religion justify the slaughter of those of a different religion or skin color? Our founding fathers knew the difference between faith in God and faith in religion….or man, so to speak, or they wouldn't have included this in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…."
Our founding fathers made it very clear that most of them believed in God, but not man. That is the reason they established a nation of laws based upon the natural law of God, and not a nation of men.
Just thought I would throw this out there to see what happens. Take care, friends.
P.S. This article is more about man and government than it is about God.
Look up that quote yourself if you don't believe me.
Yes! We who worship the one true God, Ahura Mazda, command that you evil servants of Angra Mainyu be banished!
Funny how many Christians feel the need to have the force of government brought behind the promotion and enforcement of their beliefs: it is almost as if they don’t believe their God to be strong enough on his own. Never mind letting their churches call for a day or prayer or house their crosses, ten comandments monuments or creches, no, they must be in the public square and supported by taxpayer funds or they don’t count (if you can’t force other people to support your religious beliefs it’s just no fun).
Of course, these are the same people who believe that the founding fathers intended all along to create an expressly Christian nation, yet they must have somehow incompetently left this intention entirely out of the completely secular constitiution they established, finding space only to forbid religious tests to hold offices under that document, and to forbid congress from making laws establishing religion when they did mention it — actions we are to believe are somehow not illustrative of their actual intent.
Still, atheist run countries like North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Union tend to be REALLY totalitarian.
"Argument is an intellectual process."
So what's your point, liberal? That your arguments are far more cerebral than those of the posters here? Your arguments appear somewhat short on 'intellectual process,' though fairly long on incomplete information, name-dropping, witticisms and snappy comebacks.
We don't need any of that since we prefer facts to support our arguments.
The Nazi top brass was 50/50 secular/Christian.
whoa!
yeah, but' that's only a very small slice of Islam.
So the atheist, socialist, Muslim, Indonesian, Kenyan President who is also member of a radical Chicago church, is fighting to save the National Day of Prayer?
I truly respect everyone's faith.
But right now if we don't get control of what really matters today – an OUT OF CONTROL FED and OUT OF CONTROL Too Big To Fail cartel and a TOTALLY CORRUPT CONGRESS – then what is left?
Your God and my God are disgusted at all of you in Congress. And you all should not only be ashamed at your behavior but you should also be finding away to seek forgiveness in this lifetime. The next lifetime will not forgive you for your betrayal of those who put trust in you.
Corruption is the only seat at the table. What does faith and religion have to say about that Mr Forbes?
"You terps want to continue to eliminate Christianity from America by misusing and misreading the Constitution for leftist advancement.."
This is, essentially, the truth here. Christianity is in direct opposition to most of the liberal left's agenda. Of course this administration 'understands' the true intent of the Founders–that they understand the true meaning is precisely why they labor to contort it.
I wonder if these spawned liberals even realize that fact.
Probably won't be a popular opinion with many, but the Judge is right.
Having an UnOfficial day of prayer, observed by individuals in Government? No problem…
But once Congress passes a law Creating an official National Day of Prayer… it is clearly against the Constitution.
The Government itself should not be involved in Religion in any way… either pro or con… it should not stop people from saying "Under God" if they wish… but neither should they force it…
They should not disallow prayer at school… nor should they mandate it….
They really just need to stay out of it… which this law clearly does not.
Nothing more than a deflection of the real man.
"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,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
What do you expect from a lib justice?
What religion are they establishing with a day of prayer? That's what the Constitution says — no establishment of religion.
It is a resolution in support of prayer – how is this against the constitution?
They are not mandating anything at all.
No, I think you aren't very smart.
Who said I'm an objectivist genius?
You say its CLEARLY AGAINST the Constitution. Are you able to tell me what religion this law ESTABLISHES ?????????
"JamesB is a lover of freedom and liberty."
So are the VAST majority of Muslim Americans. People and descendents of people who came here in pursuit of freedom and liberty.
They are not pigs and do not deserve our hatred.
Yes genius, and again, no act or behavior is mandated by the resolution. That being the case, clearly constitutional.
Any other questions?
Your Ayn Rand icon suggests so…
Presumably, the earlier discussion of deviance can be defined in such a way as to impose problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. This suggests that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds cannot be arbitrary in the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is, apparently, determined by an important distinction in language use. So far, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is necessary to impose an interpretation on a descriptive fact.
Romeo, sorry, but your wrong–if the Government said National Day of Christian Prayer or National Day of Jewish Prayer or Buddhist Prayer, etc., then it would be against the establishment clause (maybe); however, a generic Day of Prayer does not create a preferred religion. Please note also that the same people who CREATED our Constitution also created the National Day of Prayer….so obviously it was NOT against the Constitution as intended. So get over it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.