In response to: red alder ranch, who wrote:
Because:
a) there is supposed to be no government approved religion in this country
And how exactly does this make a "government approved religion?"
b) making this into a religious war is a stupid idea
It was a religious war back when good ol' Tommy J. sent the boys from Tun Tavern in to talk things over back in the early 1800s. There have been some lulls, but it has been a religious war for a while now.
c) making our military into a branch of a specific religion is an even stupider idea
How does buying a product readily available on the open market turn "our military into a branch of a specific religion?" Does handing out packages of food with the markings for kosher or parve (both religious concepts) also somehow establish or support a specific religion?
d) this is a fantastic recruiting tool for the enemy's religious zealots, who want to sell this as a religious war
No, they already see it as that. What has happened though, is that someone who was looking for something else to be offended by has given them aid and comfort by broadcasting this for all to see.
e) many of those who have complained are soldiers on the front lines of the battle who also think it is a stupid idea
And many soldiers like it too. What about the 'free exercise' clause? Or doesn't that have any meaning?
Making war in the name of Jesus? Just as stupid as making war in the name of Mohammed.
So, who is making war in the name of Jesus? That is in the minds of the haters of religion.
If particular religious zealots in the military wish to inscribe scripture on their own weapon, go for it, but putting religious scripture on every single weapon at the factory crosses the line. The armed forces should not be turned into an extension of someone's idea of fundamentalist Christianity. Tax dollars should not be spent on promoting a particular religion. Separation of church and state was one of the things the founding fathers were trying to accomplish in setting up this country.
My, my, my. Such tolerant and inclusive language! And, how is this promoting a particular religion? As for the "wall of separation" look up Danbury Baptist Association. No,wait, you won't bother. Here:
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut assembled October 7, 1801 to Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less costly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But, Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our infant charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favor granted, and not as inalienable rights: And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power and gain under the pretence of government and Religion should reproach their fellow man – should Reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of Religion, Law and good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a cause of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God Strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain, and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
The Committee
Neh. Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Reply of Thomas Jefferson to above letter:
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins & Stephen S. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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 legitimate 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
January 1, 1802Now for some context. The letter is concerned with the lack of religious liberty Baptists enjoyed (or not enjoyed) in the state of Connecticut. The Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, the Danbury Bapists argued, “…what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.”
The “degrading acknowledgements” comment refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted. Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations. So we have Jefferson saying two things, that the feds can neither support nor suppress any religion or denomination, and that he won’t get involved in the states business.
Not that I expect a single person on here to agree with me, but hey, everyone's entitled to his opinion, right?
Yep. No matter how wrong it is. Or how it twists history. But, as the Happy Warrior said, "
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. "
The 'establishment' clause is there to keep the federal government from intruding on the church, not the other way around. In the past 40 years, we seem to have twisted that to mean that any and all public display of religion, especially the Christian religion, is to be stamped out. But somehow various shamanistic, and other pagan systems, seem to get government (state) backing without the ACLU or anyone else screaming about it.
And, a few gratuitous quotes:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
James Madison
4th U.S. President
"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
Patrick Henry
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution
"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. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
