My Country Tis Of Thee

It's why we put a flag on our family altar on the Fourth and asked the Gods to continue to bless our country. And it's why I'm so grateful that religious education in America is confined to the home and church/synagogue/mosque/circle.

It would be a perversion of the Constitution and the entire meaning of this country were we to be like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban and institute--and enforce--a state religion. Imagine getting whipped in public--and I mean literally whipped, with no trial or recourse--for not wearing a headscarf!

Thank the Lady we aren't like them!

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

It IS great that we have those freedoms, that we have the opportunity to voice our opinions, and not be afraid of our government. However, it seems that the "freedom of religion" fights where people are fighting to get all religion out of public places is really causing a lack of freedoms in some cases. Like when we can't say "Merry Christmas" because it might offend someone. I remember a while back when one of my business teachers made a very good point, one that stuck with all of us. In a class of 50 students, he asked who knew the ten commandments...two students raised their hand. Then he asked who knew the big-mac song...about half the class. Then he stated, "Ha!! America is not based on religion any more, it's based on consumerism!! Instead of being offended that the ten commandments are up in our courts, we should be offended that there are things like smoking and fast food allowed to be advertised because they can kill (this was before the big court fights, etc), but we sit and focus on getting rid of the things that are good." He went on to say that he wasn't really a religious guy, but it didn't make sense to him where most of the laws of religion (like the 10 commandments) are out there to make people better, and we fight them; yet, there are things we defend as freedom of speech that is vulgar, crude and disrespectful (for example, when a local court decided that pornography was a freedom). People can curse at me, and claim freedom of speech, but if I use a scripture to show a point, I'm not free to talk, I'm breaking the freedom of religion law.

We definately need a balance.

My primary online hangouts are the places where folks revel in the first amendment --Oregonmediainsiders, and the second amendment --TheHighRoad. I do a lot of conversing with folks on both boards in relation to the documents that govern our country. There is a key word in there: Govern.

In 200+ years of existence, no one has found a single reference to an established State religion--Think Shari'a or the Church of England. If the founding fathers wanted it in there, why not PUT it in there? Heck, Madison, the very author of the Constitution was an Episcopalian, and by all accounts, very religious.

Without a pause, all the founding fathers thought the best of men would only be realized by the practice of religious virtue. And yet, for some reason, they saw fit to create a secular state. Very curious, that.

There is, perhaps, a reason. One that is often misinterpreted: The Consitution isn't a recipe for how to live life...but rather a recipe for how to govern. You will note that no where in the consitution does it say what the PEOPLE should do...it holds it's scope to what the GOVERNMENT should do. In other words, the 9th Amendment holds true:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The goal of the founding fathers wasn't to secure a religious state, it was to keep government OUT of religion. Let the People decide what sort of religion they wanted.

Now the big question is: how we repel those who would seek to establish or mandate a state religion? Or should we acquiesce and go with the Christian flavor du jour? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

I think one of us loyal Brits probably ought to object to the Church of England being compared to Shari'a. Before the C of E we were governed in religious matters by the Church of Rome, and when king and pope disagreed we were subject to foreign interference in the governing of our country. When various successive monarchs attempted to bring back that particular religion and the foreign influence that came with it the results were disastrous. At the same time there were more extreme reactions against catholicism, mostly up in Scotland. The Church of England was very much the middle way. Nobody here is forced to be C of E, and nobody is condemned for being something else, unless by a bigoted moron or where other issues have come into play. The only restriction really is that nobody in the line of succession is allowed to marry a catholic because history warns us that in England, Britain, that often leads to a mess. That law is probably fairly outdated now, but taken in the context of religious chaos where people felt forced to flee the country for... oh yes, America, the creation and supremacy in England of the English church was probably one of the safest middle roads our lot ever came up with.

Your constitution doesn't specify a religion, but the presumption on the part of the founding fathers was always that it would be christianity of one form or another, and probably no more catholic than we are.

Kerri.

...there must always be a wall between church and state.

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

I agree, that is a horrible thing to have happen...but what happened there is not Christianity as our family knows it--that is pure intolerance. Perhaps I have mis-represented myself (although I'll never know since it seems my last comment was taken down--freedom of speech, eh? perhaps it was too religious). I would have to agree with Kerri that the presumption of our founding fathers was that we would be a Christian nation; however, I still see that it is a persons right not to believe. I have many friends who are athiest, catholic, or baptist. I'm LDS (mormon to those who call it that), and have been told many times that I don't count as Christian, my husband has had guns pulled on him for saying that being a mormon and Christian were synonomous(while in Alabama), so we do realize the awesome freedom in not having a theocracy.
However, what I was trying to say was that our founding fathers were religious people (actually, there were many different creeds among them, but they all agreed that there was a supreme being), and that it is truly a part of this nation, whether you want to see that or not. Read their writings--they constantly assumed that God had a hand in making this country what it is.

Another thought--why is it that we fight having religion represented in public (as it's offensive), but yet crude behavior is seen as a right...usually it's just as offensive, if not more so?

Must not have made it.

If you get the Lynn smackdown, you'd know it. There hasn't been anything said that should indicate a smackdown. We are discussing Constitutional theory here, not theology Not quite ontopic, but not entirely *off* topic, either.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Founding Fathers were religious. Almost to a man. I also see that they wanted to pave the way so that you could worship as you please, and so that I can worship as I please.

It is my belief that the founders never intended to establish a *state* religion. No harm in recongnizing the people have religious beliefs, but they really wanted to steer folks away from the codification of one religion.

As to the comparison between Shari'a and The Church of England. I assure you that meant no foul. I wasn't comparing one to the other except in that they are both considered official religions of nations. No other similarities exist. Sorry for my mealy-fingered typing skillz.

No one's arguing against your point that the founding fathers were spiritual, Jilsyt. The fact that they wrote of unalienable Rights being endowed by a Creator points to the fact quite clearly. However, many were Deists, people who believed in God but refused the idea that God revealed himself to humanity through scriptural writings. According to the tenets of the Christian church of their time, most were, in fact, not Christians.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who redacted two of his copies of the gospels to exclude all miracles.

Thomas Paine was a Deist who beleived the New Testament was false.

John Adams rejected the Trinity and became a Unitarian and during his presidency the Senate ratified a treaty that stated "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

Benjamin Franklin was a Deist and although he stated that the system of morals and religion as left to us by Jesus was "the best the world ever saw or is likely to see", he persisted in his doubt of Jesus' divinity.

James Madison, also a Deist, didn't want Christianity or any other religious doctrine anywhere near the goverment. He was against exempting churches from taxes and objected to state-supported chaplains in congress. He also said that "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Other founding fathers who were Deists: George Washington and James Monroe.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

While most of our founding fathers "were diplomatic in their public expressions concerning religion, in their private conversations, voluminous writings and correspondences they expressed contrary beliefs." From "The Faith of our Founding Fathers", by Dean Worbois.

Also,

The American Revolution, at its Foundation, was Unscriptural

At its foundation, our American revolution was unscriptural. Therefore I have a hard time seeing how our government could have been founded on Christian principles, when its very founding violated one:

No matter how you cut it, the founding fathers were revolting against the King of England. It should be remembered that Peter wrote these words while Israel was suffering under the domination of government far more oppressive than England ever was. In fact, compared to current taxes, our forefathers had nothing to complain about.

From "Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State" by R.P. Nettelhorst.

I myself attend Church and teach Sunday School. But I emphatically refute the "Christian nation" idea that is used to try to legislate or litigate Christainity into our government. I also do not accept that the religious intentions of the founding fathers have any bearing on the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Constitution was meant to establish a secular government. They'd just thrown off the yoke of a government with no seperation of church and state and had no intention of establishing another one, just the opposite, in fact.

And your last thought...I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.

And while we celebrate the founding of this country every Fourth of July, let us have a few minutes of silence for those native Americans slain or removed from their ancestral lands by our fore fathers and another few minutes of silence for all those who suffered under slavery for the first 87 years of this "free" country.

Hope your packing and moving goes as smoothly as possible and that you enjoy your new digs.

Anhata
www.familynaturally.com
Your Family's General Store, Naturally

I appreciate the comments made today--I think I completely misunderstood the point to your posting of the story, as I thought you were trying to say it was Christianity's fault that this happened. Whereas, what I was trying to argue was that it was the fault of "groupthink" where the individual was not taken into account, and that it could happen anywhere. When my husband read the previous posts, he also took the same understanding as I, and pointed out that "groupthink" of atheists was what allowed WWII to continue and the many slaughters of the Jews. Today, we feel much more understood.

Anhata--as for clarifying what I meant by my last thought, I was (and am) trying to figure out a way (other than public worship) that would instill in this country's youth decent moral values. I realize that this is a job for families, one that parents should take on, but sadly the acceptance of what is crude and rude seems to be on the rise, and it's almost as if parents don't know it's their job to raise decent kids. I also realize that in general we all have different ideas of decent, but I truly have met parents who figured that "society" would teach their kids what they need to know, and in that case, those kids are not learning even a decent way to take care of themselves.

Anyhow, I'm off (and thank heaven for laptops!!), Thanks for the good wishes on the move, we'll be loading our truck in the morning, and then won't see our stuff again til the 21st, and that's if they are on time.

OK, I realize it's been months since this fun debate (hee hee), but I noticed something in a letter home to my mother about my younger brothers that triggered a memory of this conversation. The school district DID claim that en loco parentis was theirs, and gave it as a reason as to WHY parents had to call in with an excuse BEFORE coming to pick up their child. My only thought was, "Uh-oh, if they are claiming that, they are claiming a lot of rights they don't really have to our children."

Anyhow, thought it was interesting, especially for those of us looking for reasons to home school these days (I had plenty already, but you know).

I think she already called them on it, so no need to worry about her school district in particular at the moment! But, it'd be interesting to know what the other districts in this country really believe is their right with our children.