A surpising quote from Jefferson on the wall between church and state

[Aidensmom]

Umm...I was joking...What the heck? I figured the " " would convey that a bit. Nice to know where you stand on me though, yesh Its all good. You can join the many others I guess

And just a little fyi, I'm talking to a Christian off of here as I type this I know her

Uh, yeah, I was just joking too

Sorry, but does not discredit everything you say. A lot of people on these boards can be pretty rude to people, and think the little smilies just make it all OK. If you like me, you have a pretty strange way of showing it.

 

[ThAnswr]

LOL - read the thread where "Jesus Christ" apologized to offending people (if it has not been deleted.) This will sum up the feelings of many people towards the supposed majority of Christians. The OP stated she apologized because she was a Christian and was sorry that she said some things under JC's name. If you remember the apology you posted, everyone agreed/sympathized with you, including the people that don't usually have your POV. On this one, however, her apology was pretty much dissed (no pun intended as this is the Dis board ) as something that was unneccessary because Christians were wrong, nuts, had no sense of humor, etc, etc - especially me who was the one to say the posts were offensive. Anyone else can be offended on these boards, but if you are a Christian, well you are just evil and should expect it. The fact that me and the OP actually agreed at that point made no difference - we were pretty much told we were wrong for what we thought. It really amazed me how when someone is making an apology, that people just blew off what she was trying to say...especially because a lot of those people try to make a point of how compassionate and caring they are, but I guess that only applies to people that hold their beliefs.

BTW, if the original poster of that apology thread is reading this, I still think you are the most admirable person on these boards - your honesty and lack of fear to state your true feelings is extraordinary.

The US is a country in which 77% of the population classify themselves as Christian. The feelings of being a persecuted minority and the belief in the bravery of proclaiming oneself a Christian ring a little hollow given that statistic.

 

[Aidensmom]

The US is a country in which 77% of the population classify themselves as Christian. The feelings of being a persecuted minority and the belief in the bravery of proclaiming oneself a Christian ring a little hollow given that statistic.

I never said I was a persecuted minority, or that I was brave for proclaiming myself a Christian - just merely commenting on a reply to the following post:

I agree, we don't want to go backwards. But at the same time, people should be free to declare that they are Christians without being told to sit down, shut up and quit forcing their beliefs on others.

WVREVY was simply asking for an example of this, and I gave one. If you don't think that Christians aren't ever told to sit down, shut up, and quit forcing their beliefs on others, you haven't been reading all the threads on the DISboards.

 

[BuckNaked]

I pointed out Forrest McDonald's book for the very reason that you really need to understand the term in the context of the eighteenth century and the first century B.C. to wit:

The motto has been traced to Virgil, the renowned Roman poet who lived in the first century B.C. – to a line in his Eclogue IV, the pastoral poem that expresses the longing of the world for a new era of peace and happiness.

"Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo."

Virgil's line has been translated in different ways, including:
The great series of ages begins anew.
The ages' mighty march begins anew.
A mighty order of ages is born anew.
The majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew.



The entire passage by Virgil reads:

Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas;

magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo.

iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,

iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto.

I hope this helps you to better understand the phrase.

None of which changes the fact that you intentionally misinterpreted the phrase and inserted the word "secular" into the translation where it doesn't exist.

Just because Dan Brown says it, doesn't make it so.

 

[wvrevy]

Sorry to go all geeky on you, but what Latin phrase on the dollar bill declares the US a secular endeavor? The only ones I've seen on currency are e pluribus unum (one from many) and annuit coeptis (fortune favors our undertakings). I'm just curious (I took Latin way back in the day).

Look under the pyramid on the back: Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Wikipedia article on the latin phrase

 

[wvrevy]

I see this is already being discussed (hadda get off the boards to watch a movie last night ). Read the wikipedia article I linked. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term directly relates to the term "secular". Sorry, but Dan Brown didn't make it up.

 

[Disney Debbie]

But that goes both ways. I could tell you about a group of nurses who acknowledge in the employment contract that working "every other weekend" is part of the job. Then they insist they are being denied their ability to practice their religion because they have to work Sundays.They were offended that that we would not accomodate. Ummmm...hello, you signed a job description saying this was a requirement. When they are offered the opportunity to work every Saturday instead --they whine and say "it is just not fair". One tried to obtain a lawyer over it as well.

IMO this has nothing to do with being offended - this is a bunch of people trying to get out of working weekends and upholding their end of a contract. I don't think any accomodations should be made - they knew what they were getting in to. Most churches have mid-week services too.

The poster talking about the book her son brought to school is a perfect example of going overboard IMO. That is a school that is so afraid of being sued that they go too far - and I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind. I don't think it is mixing church and state for a kid to bring a book about Noah's Ark to school! Or to bring their own personal Bible if they wish to - yet this sort of stuff happens way too much. There are also schools that have gotten sued over teaching the Bible as a literature elective. That is ridiculous! No one is required to take the class - and to deny the Bible's place as literature is just ignorant. If you don't believe in God, you still need to have a decent knowledge of the Bible to get so many references in other works of literature, plays, movies etc.

I didn't really care one way or the other about the recent case of the 10 Commandments at the courthouse - because quite frankly I believe most people walk right by stuff like that just like they would if it was a painting of a retired judge. But to tell a 3 year old he can't bring a book about Noah's Ark (which isn't just CHRISTIAN by the way! it's from the Old Testament so Jews have that story as well - had it first as a matter of fact!) is ridiculous. And the fact that it was called a Christian book illustrates the point about needing to learn the Bible for a basic background in our society!

 

[WDWHound]

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." -George Washington

"Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics".

George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation

As I mentioned earlier, there are quotes on both sides of this and I believe they all show accurate views of how our founding fathers felt. If you only look at quotes on one side of the argument, you are missing half the picture. There is ample evidence that the founding fathers saw religious principals (usually Christian, but not always) as part of the core of our government. There is also ample evidence that they did not want any religiion or religions running the government and they certainly didnt want to force a religious beleifs down anyones throat. I think the difference between now and then is that they beleived all of these things were possible at the same time, where as many today see it all an either or proposition.

 

[BuckNaked]

I see this is already being discussed (hadda get off the boards to watch a movie last night ). Read the wikipedia article I linked. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the term directly relates to the term "secular". Sorry, but Dan Brown didn't make it up.

The OED shows five meanings, including one related to ages. Seeing as the man that put the phrase on the Seal said that it was to mean "New Order of the Ages" and never mentioned it meaning "New Secular Order", it's a little disingenuous to claim now, more than 200 years later, that what he really meant was something else.

 

[SonicLogic]

"Do not let anyone claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics".

George Washington from his Farewell Address to the Nation.

That is very true. Religion has a very solid place in politics, however, it has no place in government! Don't confuse the two.

As I mentioned earlier, there are quotes on both sides of this and I believe they all show accurate views of how our founding fathers felt. If you only look at quotes on one side of the argument, you are missing half the picture. There is ample evidence that the founding fathers saw religious principals (usually Christian, but not always) as part of the core of our government. .

No, that is just not true. If this were true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves to be the case. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is all.

Some people attempt to use the Declaration of Independence as their proof that this country is a Christian nation. The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

The founding fathers neither wanted the government to establish nor promote religious practice in any way. That is abundantly clear from our law.

 

[WDWHound]

That is very true. Religion has a very solid place in politics, however, it has no place in government! Don't confuse the two.


No, that is just not true. If this were true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves to be the case. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is all.

Some people attempt to use the Declaration of Independence as their proof that this country is a Christian nation. The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

The founding fathers neither wanted the government to establish nor promote religious practice in any way. That is abundantly clear from our law.

So when Ben Franklin insisted that public schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern" in his 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he did not want to promote religious practices using government? When Thomas Jefferson declared a national day of Prayer (Christian prayer no less!), he did not want to promote religious practice using Government?. I just don't see how you can say that. Their actions clearly tell another story.

The quote from Jefferson that I used indicates our Government was founded on religious principals. There is a waelth of information supporting both sides of this argument, but most people get to read both sides. I myself,am admittedly weker on the sources supporting your side the argument than my own, but here are some more quotes that show my side of the my side of the argument.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
Patrick Henry.

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. "
John Quincy Adams.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
James Madison

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people...it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

As I said before, the founding fathers did not want to make religion a thing forced by government, but there are just too many sources which indicate they built the government based on the principals of religion (mostly Christianity and Deism). Again I assert they tried to walk a line, basing the overnment on these principals, but not requiring participation in the faiths from which those principals were derived (even though Jefferson crossed the line with his National Day of prayer).

 

[wvrevy]

The OED shows five meanings, including one related to ages. Seeing as the man that put the phrase on the Seal said that it was to mean "New Order of the Ages" and never mentioned it meaning "New Secular Order", it's a little disingenuous to claim now, more than 200 years later, that what he really meant was something else.

Frankly, I could care less what he says it meant. I think I'll take the word of the OED over the public remarks of a man that, had he really intended it to mean what I, and the OED, say it does, would have been likely to get run out of town on a rail, and it certainly wouldn't have been included on the great seal (wasn't included on the dollar until much later...1935).

My entire point, and one that has now been shown pretty well by the dueling quotes on this thread, is that you can easily point to any number of things that say that the founding fathers intended the United States to have a secular government, just as you can easily point to things seeming to indicate that they didn't. Considering one way makes a special class of those that believe in a deity and, in particular, the christian God, and the other doesn't...I think we're a lot better off sticking with the secular version.

Besides...there's enough hypocrisy in government as it is. Adding religion to the mix would likely just makes things that much worse.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

In my 3-year old's preschool class, they were encouraged to bring in their favorite book to share. My son chose his Noah's Ark book, because it has a rainbow and he is fascinated with them. I was asked not to bring a "Christian book" the next time because the school is publicly funded.

You should have corrected them and said it was a Jewish book, not a Christian book.

My guess is that it would have been OK then. In a local school district around here, last December a public school permitted displays of a menorah and a Kwanzaa display, but anything to do with the holiday "Christmas" was forbidden...

 

[wvrevy]

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity. - John Adams

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

&

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty."

&

"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 classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

- all by Thomas Jefferson

And one more you may not care for:

The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life. - Adolph Hitler

Your turn. We can do this all day, but it proves nothing. I'll grant that in some cases, things may be taken too far. There is no right not to be offended in the constitution. But government endorsement of religion was never intended by the founding fathers, nor is it something that those of us that are not christian think would be a good thing today.

 

[SonicLogic]

So when Ben Franklin insisted that public schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern" in his 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he did not want to promote religious practices using government? When Thomas Jefferson declared a national day of Prayer (Christian prayer no less!), he did not want to promote religious practice using Government?. I just don't see how you can say that. Their actions clearly tell another story.

No, they did not. They both viewed religion as a very great and powerful tool to keep the uneducated masses happy and away from trouble. Here's a quote from Franklin you may enjoy:

"But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security."

However, Franklin nor Jefferson had any desire for government to promote religious practice in any way. You could practice a religion (any religion) if you desired or you could ignore religion as your individual need dictated. It's the preacher's job to pedal religion. It's not the job of the government. That's the American way! Perhaps you would prefer a federal Pope?

The quote from Jefferson that I used indicates our Government was founded on religious principals.

No, it doesn't. There is no evidence to support that contention on your part. It is interesting that you pull up a bunch of quotes to support your position, however, you show no law to support your position. I have quoted for you the law of our land, the U.S. Constitution which makes it clear that religion has not ever been nor will it ever be, part of our government. You have provided philosophical ideas which don't hold any water.

As I said before, the founding fathers did not want to make religion a thing forced by government, but there are just too many sources which indicate they built the government based on the principals of religion (mostly Christianity and Deism). Again I assert they tried to walk a line, basing the overnment on these principals, but not requiring participation in the faiths from which those principals were derived (even though Jefferson crossed the line with his National Day of prayer).

Show some evidence, rather than your opinion. Thus far, you have provided no evidence to support your position. Your entire argument is based upon your belief and faith, not evidence. My evidence (the law) proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that your belief's are wrong. For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has protected our religious freedom and allowed many faiths to flourish in our homes, in our work place and in our schools. Clearly understood and sensibly applied, it works. We can also be free from religious zealots if we so desire. The founding fathers were right and you are wrong.

 

[DVCconvert]

Show some evidence, rather than your opinion

Why not try following your own adive for once?

 

[BuckNaked]

Frankly, I could care less what he says it meant. I think I'll take the word of the OED over the public remarks of a man that, had he really intended it to mean what I, and the OED, say it does, would have been likely to get run out of town on a rail, and it certainly wouldn't have been included on the great seal (wasn't included on the dollar until much later...1935).

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have a secular government. I'm simply pointing out that to attach a meaning to a word used in a phrase in 1776 by using the definition found in a dictionary that didn't exist until more than 100 years after the phrase was placed on the Seal is laughable. If you take the time to read the information about the origin of the phrase, you'll see exactly where it was drawn from, and that it had nothing to do with secularism v. religion.

 

[SonicLogic]

Why not try following your own adive for once?

I'm there for you! Just wait and I'll help.

 

[SonicLogic]

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have a secular government. I'm simply pointing out that to attach a meaning to a word used in a phrase in 1776 by using the definition found in a dictionary that didn't exist until more than 100 years after the phrase was placed on the Seal is laughable. If you take the time to read the information about the origin of the phrase, you'll see exactly where it was drawn from, and that it had nothing to do with secularism v. religion.

Gosh, that's what I told you last night! It changed meanings from the 1st century B.C. until the 18th century. You're learning. Good job!

 

[sunni]

I think The big question becomes where to draw the line between religious principles and forcing religious concepts on people. Another reasonable question is, even if the founding fathers saw it this way, should we still see it this way? My answer is yes only to the point where it does not opress those who don't practice a faith. The problem is that even the mention of religion or a religious concept is considered opressive, and it can be clearly demonstrated that our founding fathers did not intend it to be taken to that extreme.

ITA