...judge rules Day of Prayer unconstitutional

[Tom Wetmore]

One might do well to carefully consider the full context of many of those quotes and the simple fact that these give evidence, not of an assumed Christian basis of the founding of our nation, but of one in which these things were openly and vigorously debated without clear consensus or government mandate.

For a more balanced view of the "religion" of Thomas Jefferson see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

[karl]

One might do well to carefully consider the full context of many of those quotes and the simple fact that these give evidence, not of an assumed Christian basis of the founding of our nation, but of one in which these things were openly and vigorously debated without clear consensus or government mandate.

For a more balanced view of the "religion" of Thomas Jefferson see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

Jefferson goes counter to the most basic Deist doctrine - that of NOT believing in supernatural revelation. By abridging the Bible (selecting passages which especially appealed to him and rearranging the chronological order of these) Jefferson testified to his belief in supernatural revelation as found in the Person of Jesus Christ and as recorded in the Scriptures. He especially appreciated the way the teachings of Christ corrected "the deism of the Jews" which was derived from the Old Testament. This is a particularly Christian line of reasoning.

[doug yowell]

One might do well to carefully consider the full context of many of those quotes and the simple fact that these give evidence, not of an assumed Christian basis of the founding of our nation, but of one in which these things were openly and vigorously debated without clear consensus or government mandate.

For a more balanced view of the "religion" of Thomas Jefferson see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

What??? Even the reading of TJ's religious views reveal clearly that a National Day of Prayer cannot be judged unconstitutional on the basis of Jefferson's writings alone. Any strained effort to portray Jefferson and/or the founding fathers as deists rather than Christians (despite the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary)serves only to further validate that they were all religious men. The Constitution speaks to religion not orthodox Christianity.Since religion was universely recognized as fundamentally beneficial to the prosperity of the country by it's founders and calls to religious activities have been routinely made throughout it's history, it only seems logical that the Constitution was not designed to prohibit such activities.A voluntary call to prayer hardly "establishes" religion.

[SivartM]

"overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary"

He wrote his own Bible. With only the ethical teachings of Jesus and none of the supernatural parts. He may as well have been a Buddhist. Lots of people "believe in Jesus' teachings" (well, the non-supernatural parts). Many atheists "like Jesus' teachings" (well, the non-supernatural parts). No matter what Jefferson may have said about his beliefs, his version of Christianity is not something you would want to be pushed on our country.

[karl]

"overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary"

He wrote his own Bible. With only the ethical teachings of Jesus and none of the supernatural parts. He may as well have been a Buddhist. Lots of people "believe in Jesus' teachings" (well, the non-supernatural parts). Many atheists "like Jesus' teachings" (well, the non-supernatural parts). No matter what Jefferson may have said about his beliefs, his version of Christianity is not something you would want to be pushed on our country.

Let the man define himself. If he says he is a Christian, you'd better have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which you certainly have not presented here, before claiming he is not.

He did not write his own Bible. He compiled a book entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English.” This was made by selecting passages of, you got it, SCRIPTURE! Other people have called it the Jefferson Bible and have claimed that he completely obviated Christianity from it. They lie. It is nothing but Scripture. Kind of like you highlighting stuff in your own Bible.

Jefferson wanted to have only the pure, red-letter stuff in his compilation. He was not averse to the rest, but was trying to distill the best. You can find excerpts online. Please feel free to post anything out of it here to show us how much of an infidel Jefferson was (you can find the same passages in your own Bible.)

[Bravus]

If I said to you, of myself, today, "I believe in Jesus as a great human moral teacher, but do not believe that he was the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead or ascended to heaven", would you consider that I am a Christian?

[phkrause]

If I said to you, of myself, today, "I believe in Jesus as a great human moral teacher, but do not believe that he was the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead or ascended to heaven", would you consider that I am a Christian?

No, I'd say you were a Jew or Muslim.

pk

[Bravus]

Indeed. And I'm afraid that's *exactly* what Jefferson meant when he called himself a 'real Christian'.

[doug yowell]

Indeed. And I'm afraid that's *exactly* what Jefferson meant when he called himself a 'real Christian'.

Jefferson was really a Muslim?? OK. Who wouldah guessed?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Indeed. And I'm afraid that's *exactly* what Jefferson meant when he called himself a 'real Christian'.

Jefferson was really a Muslim?? OK. Who wouldah guessed?

Seems like these were some of the same charges brought against his fitness to be President during his election campaign. He claimed to be a real Christian, he used as a reference point the Christian Bible, he supported government funding for the teaching of the Christian religion to the native Indians,he wrote of Nature's God in reference to the Christian God,he patterned his own version of the Bible after the Christian Bible, but he was really a Jew??You obviously can't believe anything the guy says.

[Bravus]

So, leave aside the Muslim and Jew thing, which was pk's joke. Do you accept my characterisation of Jefferson's beliefs above, doug? And if so, do you consider someone with those beliefs to be Christian? It's a fairly clear, simple and straightforward question.

[oldsailor29]

If I said to you, of myself, today, "I believe in Jesus as a great human moral teacher, but do not believe that he was the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, did miracles, rose from the dead or ascended to heaven", would you consider that I am a Christian?

[Tom Wetmore]

The point was that he in fact did not believe any of that.

[karl]

This is one of my favorite TJ quotes:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to Moses Robinson, 1801, ME 10:237

There is no question that Jefferson did not hold to many of the orthodox Christian teachings of his day - or ours, for that matter.

He was a free thinker. He says that he was attempting, to the best of his ability, to follow the teachings of Christ. I think we should take his word for it, even if we disagree with his conclusions.

He had a vehement distrust of the clergy which we can hardly fault him for. He had obviously been exposed to some immensely pious frauds and charlatans.

He was, incidentally, opposed to a National Day of Prayer. (Just to pay a little homage to the thread.)

[doug yowell]

So, leave aside the Muslim and Jew thing, which was pk's joke. Do you accept my characterisation of Jefferson's beliefs above, doug? And if so, do you consider someone with those beliefs to be Christian? It's a fairly clear, simple and straightforward question.

Simple answer.

"They are not all Israel which are of Israel."

[Tom Wetmore]

Jefferson's opposition to a day of prayer is very consistent with the wall of separation that he advocate for. Religion was to be private and personal, free of any governmental interference or influence of any kind. The resources and institutions of government were not to be used for religious purposes. Government stays out of religion and religion stays out of government.

[BobRyan]

In Communism religion was to be private - confined to individuals and in some cases to churches - but "never seen" and "never heard" in public.

That was not the model for the signers of the constitution.

In fact Madison and Jefferson co-sponsored a Bill titled "Punishment of Sabbath breakers" in Virginia.

They were not the perfect RL models that some among us like to imagine.

Furthermore - the founding fathers not only endorsed "approval of prayer" as a government function - they mandated GOVERNMENT prayer in the form of prayer offered at the start of each session of congress.

Far from running away from government endorsement of prayer - they required that the government ITSELF be mandated to begin each session with prayer!

in Christ,

Bob

[SivartM]

Umm... why are we arguing on the side of the people who wanted to punish Sunday-breakers?

[doug yowell]

Umm... why are we arguing on the side of the people who wanted to punish Sunday-breakers?

Uh, because Tom used them to illustrate how they were really against public prayer because they were being consistent with the strict separationist view that is often held today. Thus misrepresenting their actual beliefs and practices.

[Tom Wetmore]

...[Thomas Jefferson] was, incidentally, opposed to a National Day of Prayer. (Just to pay a little homage to the thread.)

I was merely responding to what karl posted...

[karl]

Jefferson wrote this about the National Day of Prayer which he was urged to recommend as POTUS:

"...But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it."

I must say that after reading this, I changed my mind about the National Day of Prayer. The Day of Prayer should be arranged by the Pray-ers. This will strengthen the Pray-ers and not strengthen the government. I was thinking that, since it was more of a symbolic gesture that it would not be an establishment of religion. But notice what he says about the penalty - even if the penalty is just lowered public opinion, it is simply a matter of degree different from spending time in jail or suffering a fine.

He was a very principled man.

[Dr. Rich]

Tom wrote: "Government stays out of religion and religion stays out of government." Is that so? How come the black robes for judges? Why a 'prayer' in a pleading? Why all of the titles of nobility w/in the government?

Can't find anywhere in the Constitution where Religious entities must refrain from having anything to do with the government.

Other than this, I agree.

[doug yowell]

Jefferson wrote this about the National Day of Prayer which he was urged to recommend as POTUS:

"...But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it."

I must say that after reading this, I changed my mind about the National Day of Prayer. The Day of Prayer should be arranged by the Pray-ers. This will strengthen the Pray-ers and not strengthen the government. I was thinking that, since it was more of a symbolic gesture that it would not be an establishment of religion. But notice what he says about the penalty - even if the penalty is just lowered public opinion, it is simply a matter of degree different from spending time in jail or suffering a fine.

He was a very principled man.

I'm going with Lincoln on this one. Jefferson was afraid of civil reprecussions if one were to disregard it's mandate. This clearly never happened and the government, particularly in it's present form, has never enforced it's adherence. After 200 years of governmental "religious" activities I don't think we're on the verge of a Christian theocracy. Jefferson was a very principled man, but not always consistent or right.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

I must say that after reading this, I changed my mind about the National Day of Prayer. The Day of Prayer should be arranged by the Pray-ers. This will strengthen the Pray-ers and not strengthen the government. I was thinking that, since it was more of a symbolic gesture that it would not be an establishment of religion. But notice what he says about the penalty - even if the penalty is just lowered public opinion, it is simply a matter of degree different from spending time in jail or suffering a fine.

He was a very principled man.

I'm going with Lincoln on this one. Jefferson was afraid of civil reprecussions if one were to disregard it's mandate. This clearly never happened and the government, particularly in it's present form, has never enforced it's adherence. After 200 years of governmental "religious" activities I don't think we're on the verge of a Christian theocracy. Jefferson was a very principled man, but not always consistent or right.

But do you get where TJ was coming from? He did not want the government involved in ANYTHING that people could do on their own. Day of prayer is very doable without government.

Also, so many other things the government has gradually gotten into. Don't let its nose in the tent.

[phkrause]

I'm going with Lincoln on this one. Jefferson was afraid of civil reprecussions if one were to disregard it's mandate. This clearly never happened and the government, particularly in it's present form, has never enforced it's adherence. After 200 years of governmental "religious" activities I don't think we're on the verge of a Christian theocracy. Jefferson was a very principled man, but not always consistent or right.

I think that can be said of all of us, that we are not always consistent or right. But do agree with you point over all.

pk