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

[DVCconvert]

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

No you're not...you're "there" only for yourself -- you have an ego problem and the only thing you want to help is your own sense of self worth.


But that's "ok" longer term users are use to your type of posters. We understand your needs, and hope that by continuing to be dismissive and scarastic you can feel better about yourself! After all, how could anyone post something like this???? :

Originally Posted by SonicLogic
I think it has to do with life experience and education. I have always felt it imperative to provide educational opportunities to all people with the hope that they will learn. After all, we all pay the price for the havoc caused by stupid people.

For example, how many times have you gotten into the express line at the grocery store (10 items only!) yet see someone unload 20 items from their cart? You have to pay for their stupidity with your time.

How many times at WDW have you seen people walking through the parks smoking? We all pay the price because we have to smell their tobacco smoke. It's just ignorance that causes these problems.

How many times at a WDW resort have you had to listen to inconsiderate "neighbors" who decide to party all night? Again, stupidity is the problem.

How many times have you had to listen to some DVC member try to explain what a good deal they got with their membership?

Basic education is the cure for these problems, but alas, the cure will never get to many of these people

 

[BuckNaked]

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!

And as I told you last night, the meaning that the author was using was clear - it was to mean ages, not secular. Or are you presuming that the author lied to everyone about the meaning of the phrase?

You are choosing to ignore the fact that "seclorum" was used by the author to mean "ages", (which is a correct translation) because to do so would negate your argument that our currency contains a phrase declaring a secular nation.

 

[JennyMominRI]

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...

You do realize that Kwanzaa is not in any way,shape or form a religious holiday?

 

[SonicLogic]

And as I told you last night, the meaning that the author was using was clear - it was to mean ages, not secular. Or are you presuming that the author lied to everyone about the meaning of the phrase?

You are choosing to ignore the fact that "seclorum" was used by the author to mean "ages", (which is a correct translation) because to do so would negate your argument that our currency contains a phrase declaring a secular nation.

I misunderstood then. I thought you had reserached and understood the compromise aspect. P.S. Virgil was not a Christian.

 

[DVCconvert]

I misunderstood then.

Still waiting for your -- "help".

 

[Pop Daddy]

I thought it was a quote from the Jeffersons (the ones who own the cleaning stores)

 

[WDWHound]

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?

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.


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.

No, it doesn't. Not even close, But I am not sure you undersatand what I am trying to prove. I am looking at the intentions of the founding fathers. I am looking at both their action and the motavations behind those action. On this I have provided much evidence, the actions of the founding fathers themselves. Jefferson decalered a national day of prayer, Fanklin tried to use the government to teach Christianity (though in that cases it was a state government). Many of the foudning fathers own words say they used the pinciples of Christyiaty to build or government. How much evidence do you need?

You ask for evidence, and then ignore it. Why? The laws are not the only evidence when speaking of the intentions of the founding fathers. You act as if I'm trying to change our government. I am not. I am only trying to point out that things were not so cut and dired when our govenrment was founded and that the founding fathers saw the principals of religion as part of our government. The said so in their own words which I have quoted here. In 2 cases shown here. The actually used the Government (wrongly in my opninion) to educate people of these prinicples and to attempt to get them to practice them. Still you ignore that and will only look at your view of law. Sorry, but there is more evidence out there than that. The real picture shows men who used religion to acquire the principles of their government. Yes, I agreee that the law should be free of religion, but the actions of the founding fathers which I have shown here indicate they may have seen things at least slightly different in practice.

You ask for evidence, but will not consider any views not based in law. The actions of those who created that law you conveniently ignore. You claim to known the intentions of the founding fathers, but you ignore their own words and actions in favor of your interpretation of their laws. Sorry, but that is not logical.

 

[frozone]

During a break, I was looking for some quotes on freedom and God to use in my sermon this weekend (I preach at a local nursing home approx once a month). I found this...

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists.


I am not one who beleives any religion should run the government, but this quote sounds like Jefferson wess less against the idea than he has been made out to be. I was familiar with the wall of seperation reference from another letter of Jefferson's (who isn't), but not the "one way" concept described here. I have always beleived our government was founded on Christian principals (and there is lots of evidence for this), but Jefferson was a Deist. Its interesting that even he acknowledged the role of Christian principles in our government.

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread and sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm interested.......how would you (and others) reconcile Jefferson's views on the role of Christianity in government and his role as a slave owner?

 

[frozone]

Jefferson decalered a national day of prayer, Franklin tried to use the government to teach Christianity (though in that cases it was a state government).

Franklin also edited Jefferson's version of the Declaration from "we hold these truthes to be sacred " to "we hold these truthes to beself-evident " to emphasize the role of logic and reason in self-governance. The History Channel ran a great biography of Franklin yesterday, and characterizing him in an evangelical role is misleading, to say the least.

 

[Chicago526]

Franklin also edited Jefferson's version of the Declaration from "we hold these truthes to be sacred " to "we hold these truthes to beself-evident " to emphasize the role of logic and reason in self-governance. The History Channel ran a great biography of Franklin yesterday, and characterizing him in an evangelical role is misleading, to say the least.

I saw that! It was very good. Franklin beleived that faith and being a good person was the important part, not the name on the church (or temple, he donated money to the first Jewish synagouge (sp?) in Philly).

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread and sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm interested.......how would you (and others) reconcile Jefferson's views on the role of Christianity in government and his role as a slave owner?

To say Jefferson was a walking contradiction is putting it mildly. He said slavery was the fault of the King, and wanted to outlaw it in the new government, but never got rid of his own. I've read a few books on him, and never really felt like I understood him any better afterwards.

 

[WDWHound]

Franklin also edited Jefferson's version of the Declaration from "we hold these truthes to be sacred " to "we hold these truthes to beself-evident " to emphasize the role of logic and reason in self-governance. The History Channel ran a great biography of Franklin yesterday, and characterizing him in an evangelical role is misleading, to say the least.

Actually, I haven't called him an evangelist, and Certainly not a Christian one. Franklin, along with Jefferson, was probably a Deist. However, Franklin deed refer to Christianity as "the most excellent of religions" and he did try to use government resources to teach it in public schools. Just as in Jefferson's national day of prayer, this shows that he did not necessarly interpret the wall of seperation between church and state as most do today.

I am not saying he was an Evangelist, or even a Christian
I am not saying the Government was designed to be a religious institution.
I am not saying the Government should be a religious institution.

What I am saying is that Jefferson himself (the one who first mentioned the wall between church and state) actually said it allow for Christian Princilpal (note not faith or practice) to remain in government. I am also saying the the actions of our founding fathers show that had no problem with the government being involved in relgious functions on at least 2 occasions. I simply found this interesting because the common wisdom on these issues would have deemed such things impossible, when in fact it can not be debated that they did happen.

 

[WDWHound]

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread and sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm interested.......how would you (and others) reconcile Jefferson's views on the role of Christianity in government and his role as a slave owner?

Simple, Jefferson was a hypocrite. Pure and simple. He promised to release his slaves, but never did. On one day he would say things that made it seem like he was absolutely against even the slightest hint of religious beleifs in government, and the next day he would be leading a prayer in the senate.

Though Jefferson was a Deist, he saw much he liked in the teachings of Jesus, he just wanted to ignore half the picture, (ie the whole part about Jesus being the Son of God). Why a Deist would declare a National Day of Prayer to The Christian God is confusing to say the least.

This is the sort of thing Ifind interesting. I don't think The intentions of our founding fathers are nearly so clear as some would like them to be, especially in the cases of Jefferson, Franklin and Madison. The law pleads one case and the words and actions of our founding fathers often back up that case. On the other hand, their words and actions often seem to be in direct conflict with our understanding of the law. So, what was going on? Were they playing fast and loose with their own government? Did they see the law differently?

 

[caitycaity]

how come whebere i find one of these it has alreday devloved past the point where i want to get involved? i must not dis enough.

 

[frozone]

Actually, I haven't called him an evangelist, and Certainly not a Christian one. Franklin, along with Jefferson, was probably a Deist. However, Franklin deed refer to Christianity as "the most excellent of religions" and he did try to use government resources to teach it in public schools. Just as in Jefferson's national day of prayer, this shows that he did not necessarly interpret the wall of seperation between church and state as most do today.

I am not saying he was an Evangelist, or even a Christian
I am not saying the Government was designed to be a religious institution.
I am not saying the Government should be a religious institution.

What I am saying is that Jefferson himself (the one who first mentioned the wall between church and state) actually said it allow for Christian Princilpal (note not faith or practice) to remain in government. I am also saying the the actions of our founding fathers show that had no problem with the government being involved in relgious functions on at least 2 occasions. I simply found this interesting because the common wisdom on these issues would have deemed such things impossible, when in fact it can not be debated that they did happen.

You are right; you didn't call him an Evangelist. I quoted you, but was more referring to subsequent posts that are quick to ignore the complexities of the situation in their eagerness to use the founders as an opportunity to evangelize.