Will we pull Obama's teeth? Our founding fathers instructed us to chose men who were virtuous in private, How well do we know our candidates. They told us to chose men with high morals, how many have we elected in the past only to find they have more skeletons in their closet than most of us have forks in the silverware drawer. They told us not make these positions one of high pay, only of honor, or scoundrels would seek these positions. They told us elect modest thinking men, for those with large egos would bully and push their will unto the country and their opposition would demean them while wanting to have the same power themselves to pursuit their goals. Have we listened, is not the pay for these jobs way above average, is not the retirement program they have voted for themselves far better than most Americans enjoy? How many elected officials have legal problems, how many have and are facing ethics charges? How many actually have read and studied the constitution to know if they are are passing or proposing constitutional laws? De we really know the heart and mind of the candidates we have to chose from? I submit to you that the number of unqualified representatives, out numbers the the qualified. Why? There are several reasons, one we just don't pay attention, two, as Ben Franklin warned, when the people become corrupt, they only elect corrupt officials. You see, we are not living the standards needed to have a great working republic, therefore we can not or will not elect men and women with the standards to keep this great republic. Our Founding Fathers told us, plain and simple, only a religious, moralistic, virtuous people will be able to retain the principles that are needed for this Republic to survive. Are we going to pull his teeth, or just give him dentures?
The Founding Fathers also told us it was important to teach 3 things in our schools when they passed the Northwest Ordinance, 1,Religion, 2,Morality, and 3, Knowledge. Yes religion, a nondenominational religion that promoted 5 fundamentals. 1, There exists a Creator who made all things and mankind should recognize and worship Him. 2, The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong. 3, The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other. 4, ALL mankind live beyond this life. 5, In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one. This position was set forth in the Northwest Ordinance, which was voted on and passed by the same congress that approved the Constitution, the same year as they approved the Constitution. Washington re-emphasized this ordinance in his Farewell Address, both Franklin and Jefferson had a hand in its writing, and Samuel Adams stated that this group of basic beliefs which constitute "the religion of America is the religion of all mankind. So when Obama says we are not a Christian Nation, you know he does not know anything about the matter. This separation of Church and State only is to keep the state from telling us which Church we worship in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
ReplyDeleteWhile many founders were Christian of one sort or another, care should be taken not to make too much of the founders' individual religious beliefs. Given the republican nature of our government, it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society. That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle of separation of religion and state.
In assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state--as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx