"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

[fromtheright]

Johnv,

Thanks for the info re Barton. I was aware of that but don't know if others here were. I was a big fan of his early on, but his sloppy scholarship (though tempted to, I won't call him dishonest; I don't know his heart, but I can certainly judge his writings) turned me off. I'll never rely on him as a source again. I've heard him speak a couple of times and on one occasion asked him about Robert Cord's book, Separation of Church and State, which is highly regarded and widely referenced, which takes a more compromising position on Establishment. Though I disagree with Cord, he is certainly in what I would consider the accommodationist/non-strict separationist corner and someone that Barton should consider both an ally and an important scholar in the field. Barton abruptly dismissed the question and presumably Cord as a source. His unwillingness to discuss in public differing viewpoints also tells me that those who seek to find and know the truth and look to honestly debate the issue should not turn to Barton. My position is actually probably closer to Barton's as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause (though I would identify my position more in line with Judge Michael McConnell's, probably, than Barton's) than Cord's, there are far better sources than Barton for the serious student.

 

[buckster75]

Iread the first to be from James Madison.

 

[buckster75]

Good gravy. This Barton is some kind of jerk .Thanks John. How bout this one. Is it ligit?

"And now I speak of thanking God, I desire with all humility to acknowledge that I owe the mentioned happiness of my past life to His kind providence, which lead me to the means I used and gave them success. My belief of this induces me to hope, though I must not presume, that the same goodness will still be exercised toward me, in continuing that happiness, or enabling me to bear a fatal reverse, which I may experience as others have done: the complexion of my future fortune being known to Him only in whose power it is to bless to us even our afflictions."

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
roots , roots, roots...why did the fist settlers come to America and what did they believe.

The first settlers landed in Jamestown in 1607 from England, then the Dutch in 1613, and ultimately the English Puritans in 1620.

We tend to think of the Puritans as the first colonialists, probably because their intent was to establish a permanent residence away from England proper, while Jamestown and New Netherlands were commerce-driven establishments.

The Puritans where escaping persecution leveled upon them by the crown, among which was their use of the Geneva Bible after England made it illegal to posess any translation other than the King James version.

Originally posted by buckster75:
Good gravy. This Barton is some kind of jerk .Thanks John. How bout this one. Is it ligit?

It's legit. That comes from the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1791, Chapter 1.

Franklin, who believed in a higher power, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he approved of his moral teachings. Franklin believed that all religion tends to promote morality, hence he was tolerant of a wide variety of religious beliefs, and donated money to all denominations which asked for contributions.

Interestingly, Franklin also said: "If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another." (Letter to the "London Packet", June 3rd 1772)

 

[fromtheright]

buckster,

You're right. That is the quote that Barton attributed to Madison. Though I would like to believe that Madison said it, I won't use the quote.

Re the Franklin quote you referenced it, I Googled it and found it on several reputable websites, including C-SPAN, from Ben Franklin's Autobiography

 

[rsr]

Originally posted by buckster75:
I also think, as I said before, that the founders were just short of believing that freedom of religion meant that people cound believe in the God of the Bible any way they wanted to.

I don't believe so.

The Baptist John Leland, a firm supporter of the Bill of Rights and religious liberty, said:

"Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing."

"To say that the government of the United States is perfect, would be arrogant; but I have no hesitancy in saying, that the Constitution has left religion infallibly where it should be left in all government, viz: in the hands of its author, as a matter between God and individuals; leaving an open door for Pagans, Turks, Jews or Christians, to fill any office in the government, without any religious test, to make them hypocrites; securing to every man his right of argument and free debate: not considering religious opinions objects of civil government, or any ways under its control ..."

Madison opposed chaplaincies and even religious proclamations:

"Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are I. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason and the principles of the Xn religion require that all the individuals composing a nation even of the same precise creed & wished to unite in a universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected thro' the intervention of their religious not of their political representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated widely from others, and where no agreement could take place thro' the former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong: 4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect. The Ist proclamation of Genl Washington dated Jany 1. 1795 recommending a day of thanksgiving, embraced all who believed in a supreme ruler of the Universe." That of Mr. Adams called for a Xn worship. Many private letters reproached the Proclamations issued by J. M. for using general terms, used in that of Presit W--n; and some of them for not inserting particulars according with the faith of certain Xn sects. The practice if nor strictly guarded naturally terminates in a conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to a majority. 5. The last & not the least objection is the liability of the practice to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well as the increase of party animosities. Candid or incautious politicians will not always disown such views. In truth it is difficult to frame such a religious Proclamation generally suggested by a political State of things, without referring to them in terms having some bearing on party questions."

— James Madison, Detached Memoranda (emphasis added)


"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.

— James Madison, letter to Jasper Adams (emphasis added)

 

[buckster75]

maybe this would be a separate topic.

Would the founders have left God out of the Const. if they had any inkling that this country would have gone so far from God?

 

[fromtheright]

rsr,

Madison opposed chaplaincies and even religious proclamations:

He did not oppose them until long after his Presidency. When the First Congress proposed and approved these chaplaincies he did not speak against them.


buckster,

maybe this would be a separate topic: Would the founders have left God out of the Const. if they had any inkling that this country would have gone so far from God?


I haven't noticed it on the forum yet? Do you mind if I go ahead and post it (with proper credit and attribution, of course

)?

 

[LadyEagle]

This thread will be closed no earlier than 2100 EDT today.

Great Discussion! But it's closing time, per the 10-page warning.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator