• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A first for America...

katrina

Well-known member
A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath
What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?



Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family..

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.. (End Commentary)
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
The Bible is only a token anyway. Very few elected officials believe the Bible is true, much less Gods word. Actually I would think that the same is true of most Americans. Frankly it makes a mockery of the Bible to be placed under a politicians hand. Let them swear on the Koran. As a matter of fact, almost all refrence to God from our political system is nothing more than a rememberance of our Godly past. It has no relevance to society today. I about half way wish they would take Gods name off everything.I'm ready for the real Christians to be distinguished from the fakes anyway. I never run across many people (some here excluded) that say they aren't Christian yet they don't believe the Bible is true, in the virgin birth, the resurection, etc. Econ are you saying if they had to use the Bible to swear on that it would be the same as Shaira law? Ridiculious!
 

andybob

Well-known member
Mat; 5 vs 34 - 37. James 5 vs 12 . When giving evidence in court, my wife and I gave the athiest vow as we believe to swear on god's word is against biblical teaching, in all things our yes should be yes, and our no, no.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Wouldn't that be a conflict of church & state anyway by using ANY religious document ( Bible/Quran/Talmuc/Book of Mormon etc) to seal an oath made under/for/by any goverment office or body?
 

nonothing

Well-known member
I think If a country has a a certain ceremony for becoming a citizen,then that way should be respected ......If not honored,then citizenship should be denied....plain amd simple...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
The Bible is only a token anyway. Very few elected officials believe the Bible is true, much less Gods word. Actually I would think that the same is true of most Americans. Frankly it makes a mockery of the Bible to be placed under a politicians hand. Let them swear on the Koran. As a matter of fact, almost all refrence to God from our political system is nothing more than a rememberance of our Godly past. It has no relevance to society today. I about half way wish they would take Gods name off everything.I'm ready for the real Christians to be distinguished from the fakes anyway. I never run across many people (some here excluded) that say they aren't Christian yet they don't believe the Bible is true, in the virgin birth, the resurection, etc. Econ are you saying if they had to use the Bible to swear on that it would be the same as Shaira law? Ridiculious!

No, you mistake my post. The Bible has been part of the basis of our laws and justice system. The Koran has not. Many Muslims believe the Koran's Sharia law should be the law of the land while any American official should look to the laws of the land as the laws of the land.

Anyone taking an oath of office on the Bible understands that the legalistic view of Leviticus is not the law of the land, however, I don't know that would be true about swearing on the Koran, especially in light of many countries living with Sharia law.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Wouldn't that be a conflict of church & state anyway by using ANY religious document ( Bible/Quran/Talmuc/Book of Mormon etc) to seal an oath made under/for/by any goverment office or body?
Are you serious? Or just joking?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Would you force someone to swear on something they don't believe? Would that be better?

But the truth is no one swears on any religious text to be sworn into the Congress of the US. It's all made up by some right wing kook and bought into by other right wing kooks. The citizens of Minnesota elected this guy to Congress, apparently they liked his view on Minnesota values.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
You're the kook.
Here's what a Jew says.

From newsmax, your bible.

Democrat's Quran at Oath Plan Criticized





Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in.
The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.
Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."
"Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," he wrote. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.
Ellison was unavailable for comment Friday, but his incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, dismissed the brouhaha.
"I think the criticism is being flamed by the politics of division that were rejected in the '06 election cycle," said Moe, who worked for 10 years for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
Moe, speaking in a telephone interview, noted that the tradition is for all members of Congress to be sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used - or in Ellison's case, the Quran.
But Prager argued in a telephone interview that the ceremony was no less significant than the actual swearing-in.
"Oh, that's the whole point - it's exactly because it's ceremonial that it matters to me," he said. "Ceremonies matter. Ceremonies are exceedingly important. That is the way a society states what is most significant to it."
Prager argued that the issue wasn't about freedom of religion.

"I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible," he said.
Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish lawmaker to take the oath on a Bible that included only the Old Testament, Prager responded, "Yes, it would," because he said the point is to honor the "Bible of this country."

But despite writing that Ellison shouldn't serve in Congress if he doesn't take an oath with the Bible, Prager said he didn't think Ellison should be banned from serving.

"I don't think anything legal should be done about this," he said.

Moe said the issue was pretty straightforward.
"Religious freedom is a tradition in our country," she said.

Ellison won an open seat race to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.

© 2006 Associated Press
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Most government oaths don't use or haven't used the Bible to place their hand on for many years... In fact the oath for swearing in court witness's usually does not use it anymore- altho I have made it a practice of using the old " I swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God"- when swearing in witnesses or officers-- altho if it was objected to I would probably have to leave the "so help me God" out of the oath- and if the refusal was during a trial in front of a jury could probably be reason for a mistrial.....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
You're the kook.
Here's what a Jew says.

From newsmax, your bible.

Democrat's Quran at Oath Plan Criticized
Keith Ellison, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress next month, has offended some conservatives with his plan to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in.
The decision by Ellison, D-Minn., to use the Muslim holy book for the ceremony instead of the Bible triggered an angry column by Dennis Prager on the Web site Townhall.com this week.
Headlined, "America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," Prager argued that using the Quran for the ceremony "undermines American civilization."
"Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible," he wrote. "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Conservative bloggers have picked up the criticism and run with it.
Ellison was unavailable for comment Friday, but his incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, dismissed the brouhaha.
"I think the criticism is being flamed by the politics of division that were rejected in the '06 election cycle," said Moe, who worked for 10 years for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
Moe, speaking in a telephone interview, noted that the tradition is for all members of Congress to be sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used - or in Ellison's case, the Quran.
But Prager argued in a telephone interview that the ceremony was no less significant than the actual swearing-in.
"Oh, that's the whole point - it's exactly because it's ceremonial that it matters to me," he said. "Ceremonies matter. Ceremonies are exceedingly important. That is the way a society states what is most significant to it."
Prager argued that the issue wasn't about freedom of religion.

"I want Jews like myself to take the oath on the Bible, even though the New Testament is not our Bible," he said.
Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish lawmaker to take the oath on a Bible that included only the Old Testament, Prager responded, "Yes, it would," because he said the point is to honor the "Bible of this country."

But despite writing that Ellison shouldn't serve in Congress if he doesn't take an oath with the Bible, Prager said he didn't think Ellison should be banned from serving.

"I don't think anything legal should be done about this," he said.

Moe said the issue was pretty straightforward.
"Religious freedom is a tradition in our country," she said.

Ellison won an open seat race to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.

© 2006 Associated Press

It says exactly what I said, no religious text is used in swearing in a Congressman. Your right wing kook, Prager, flat out lied and you kooks are passing it around on the internet as if it were God's truth. He made a fool of you, Red Robin. How many times do these people have to make a fool of you before you notice?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
You had the intent to mislead, is that a lie? It is in my book. Multiculturalism is the downfall of any nation. Not multiracism but multiculturalism. Our country was founded by people from everywhere but they had a continuous vein of Americanism which included the Bible and Christianity. I read or heard somewhere that the most quoted precedent of the Supreme Court till the 1800's was the book of Deuteronomy. I don't know if that's true but it's undeniable that we were patterned after Christian teachings. Thanks to people (used broadly) like you we are now trying to appease every person of foreign blood by using their language in our governments, traditions taught in our schools and now, their religions allowed in our ceremonys. It won't work. It can't.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin said:
You had the intent to mislead, is that a lie? It is in my book. Multiculturalism is the downfall of any nation. Not multiracism but multiculturalism. Our country was founded by people from everywhere but they had a continuous vein of Americanism which included the Bible and Christianity. I read or heard somewhere that the most quoted precedent of the Supreme Court till the 1800's was the book of Deuteronomy. I don't know if that's true but it's undeniable that we were patterned after Christian teachings. Thanks to people (used broadly) like you we are now trying to appease every person of foreign blood by using their language in our governments, traditions taught in our schools and now, their religions allowed in our ceremonys. It won't work. It can't.

W-R-O-N-G

Since the beginning our country has had many different religions represented, not only Christianity.
I never said they didn't . You are building a straw "woman" to tear down. I said our nation was patterned after Christian teachings. You didn't refute that I noticed.

Judiasm , Christianity, and Islam are 3 very , very different religions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"These and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation"
Supreme Court opinion
Church of the Holy Trinity vs United States
Feb. 29,1982.143
US 457-458, 465-471,36L
ed 226
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
1609 Virginia colony charter:
“The principal effect which we can desire or expect of this action is the conversion… of the people in those parts unto the true worship of God and Christian religion.”
1620 Mayflower Compact:
“Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith… [we] combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for… furtherance of the ends aforesaid.”

The Puritans arriving shortly after the Pilgrims had a similar purpose:
“[W]e are a company professing ourselves fellow-members of Christ… knit together by this bond of love… [W]e are entered into covenant with Him for this work… [F]or we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.”

1662 North Carolina charter:
“[E]xcited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith… in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted, and only inhabited by… people who have no knowledge of Almighty God.”

1681 Pennsylvania Charter:
“William Penn… out of a commendable desire to… [convert] the savage natives by gently and just manners to the love of civil society and Christian religion, hath humbly besought leave of us to transport an ample colony unto a certain country… in the parts of America not yet cultivated and planted.”

America’s First Governments
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, precursor to our federal Constitution:
“[W]ell knowing when a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people, there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God.”
“[E]nter into combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess… which, according to the truth of the said Gospel, is now practiced amongst us.”

1643 the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Plymouth, and New Haven joined to form the New England Confederation - America’s first “united” government.
“[W]e all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

William Penn’s 1682, “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania”
“Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God… This settles the divine right of government beyond exception, and that for two ends: first, to terrify evildoers; secondly, to cherish those that do well; which gives government a life beyond corruption and makes it as durable in the world, as good men shall be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end.”


Education in America

The American settlers wanted all to be able to read the bible for themselves so that they would be able to know if their government was passing laws in accordance with the Bible.
One of the first public school laws passed was the “Old Deluder Satan Law,” for Massachusetts in 1642 and Connecticut in 1647.

“It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former time… It is therefore ordered…[that] after the Lord hath increased [the settlement] to the number of fifty households, [they] shall then forthwith appoint one within their town, to teach all such children as shall resort to him, to write and read… And it is further ordered, that where any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or households, they shall set up a grammar school… to instruct youth, so far as they may be fitted for the university.”

Christianity and education were inseparable at all levels whether public or private. 1636 rules of Harvard:
“Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17.3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2,3). Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein.”

The 1790 rules were similar:
“All persons of what degree forever residing at the College, and all undergraduates… shall constantly and seasonable attend the worship of God in the chapel, morning and evening… All the scholars shall, at sunset in the evening preceding the Lord’s Day, lay aside all their diversions and … it is enjoined upon every scholar carefully to apply himself to the duties of religion on said day.”
Harvard’s two mottos were: “For the Glory of Christ” and “For Christ and the Church.”

Yale was similar in its goal. In 1755 it instructed its students:
“Above all have an eye to the great end of all your studies, which is to obtain the clearest conceptions of Divine things and to lead you to a saving knowledge of God in his Son Jesus Christ.”

George Washington provides the most succinct description of our education system in a statement made to some Delaware Chiefs who wanted to have some of their youths trained in American schools:
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.”

The Northwest Ordinance signed into law by president Washington in 1789 states:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
This was the law of the land on how states would come into the union and it was signed into law at the exact time when the Founders were drafting the First Amendment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You mean Bill O'Reilly is wrong? He says the country was founded under Judao-Christian beliefs.....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Where'd you go R2? I was just getting warmed up and you went and ran off on me. :lol2: Obviously I wasn't as w-r-o-n-g as you thought I was. I guess she might be out searching the original documents looking for that muslim influence that was so visible in the founding of this nation. :lol2:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” 1772:
“The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”

John Hancock, 1775, called Massachusetts to a day of prayer and fasting:
“That it be, and hereby is, recommended to the good people of this colony… as a day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer… to confess the sins… to implore the forgiveness of all our transgressions… and especially that the union of the American colonies in defence of their rights, for which, hitherto, we desire to thank Almighty God, may be preserved and confirmed… and that America may soon behold a gracious interposition of Heaven.”

Congressional proclamation designating May 17, 1776, as a national day of prayer and fasting:
“The Congress…desirous…to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely…on His aid and direction…do earnestly recommend…a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,…and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness.”

July 9th, 1776, Just after the signing of the Declaration Rev. Mr. Duché was appointed chaplain of Congress and gave the first prayer during a general assembly:
“O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings and Lord of lords…over all the kingdoms, empires, and governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these American States who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on thee…under thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in council, and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause…All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, and our Savior, Amen!”

September 11, 1777, after experiencing a shortage of bibles because of the British embargo Congress ordered:
“[T]hat the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great… your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.”

October 24, 1781, with the surrender of the British troops Congress ordered:
“Resolved, That Congress will at two o’clock this day go in procession to the Dutch Lutheran Church and return thanks to Almighty God for crowning the allied arms of the United States and France with success by the surrender of the whole British Army under the command of the Earl Cornwallis.”

September 12, 1782, Congress endorsed the first English-language Bible ever printed in America:
“Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled…recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”

Strickland, an early historian noted:
“Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the States assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!”

October 18, 1783, Congress approved a day of prayer and thanksgiving for peace and victory in the revolutionary war:
“Impressed, therefore, with an exalted sense of the blessings by which we are surrounded, and of our entire dependence on that Almighty Being from whose goodness and bounty they are derived, the United States in Congress assembled, do recommend it to the several States… a day of public thanksgiving that all the people may then assemble to celebrate with grateful hearts and united voices the praises of their Supreme and all bountiful Benefactor for his numberless favors and mercies…and above all that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the blessed Gospel and secured to us in the fullest extent the rights of conscience in faith and worship.”

Many State Governors also issued their own proclamations for days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. This type of open acknowledgement of God and reliance upon God was common practice.

The national Congress issued fifteen proclamations throughout the Revolution and many dozens of similar State proclamations were issued-most strongly and openly Christian.

1787 during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin(one of the least religious of the Founders) gave one of the longest speeches as they were having problems drafting the new Constitution:
“The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other…is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding… In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel… I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”

Not only did religious activities accompany the drafting of the federal Constitution, they also accompanied its ratification as is evident by the various State conventions:
Massachusetts, “On motion of the Hon. Mr. [John] Adams, Voted, That the Convention well attend morning prayers daily, and that the gentlemen of the clergy, of every denomination, be requested to officiate in turn.”

New York, “After appointing the proper subordinate officers, and having ordered that the doors should be kept open… the business of the Convention opened every morning with prayer.”

Virginia, “On the recommendation of Mr. Paul Carrington, the Rev. Abner Waugh was unanimously elected chaplain, to attend every morning to read prayers immediately after the bell shall be rung for calling the Convention.”

Annals of Congress, September 25, 1789:
“Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness…”
This was passed the same day that Congress approved the final wording of the First Amendment.

George Washington, September 17, 1796, Farewell Address:
“Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert…? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle.”

Prayer was a regular part of the early Supreme Court’s activities:
“Court opened on Saturday, May 12, with Chief-Justice John Jay, Associate Justice Wiliams Cushing, and Jidge John Lowell in attendance. On Monday, May 14, Jay delivered a charge to the Grand Jury…’replete with his usual perspicuity[wisdom] and elegance.’ The prayer was made by the Rev. Dr. [Samuel] Parker. His Excellency the Vice-President of the United States [John Adams], was in Court.”
Boston, Massachusetts, 1792

No separation between religion and government:
“This being the day of general election, at nine in the morning I repaired to the Senate Chamber, conformably to a summons which I received from the Governor [Caleb Strong]…The Governor then came and administered to us the oaths required by the constitution…The Governor and Council then came and with both Houses proceeded to the meeting house where a sermon was preached by Mr. Baldwin.”
John Quincy Adams

French author, Alexis de Tocqueville:
“Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically apposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”

Another anti-Christian French author, Achille Murat:
“It must be admitted that looking at the physiognomy [discernible character] of the United States, its religion is the only feature which disgusts a foreigner…There is no country in which the people are so religious as in the United States; to the eyes of a foreigner they even appear to be too much so…”
Despite his dislike he writes:
“While a death-struggle is waging in Europe…it is curious to observe the tranquility which prevails in the United States.”

Our own Supreme Court declared in 1892:
“[T]his is a religious people. This is historically true…These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people…These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”


Religious Nature of the Founding Fathers

One false allegation is that most of the Founders were deists.
Jefferson stated:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrine of Jesus.”

John Adams:
“The idea of infidelity [a disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the divine origin of Christianity] cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror.”

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration:
“I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism, and atheism prevail in the world.”

Alexander Hamilton:
“[T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.”

Patrick Henry:
“I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory [being called a traitor], because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics…eing a Christian…is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.”

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution:
“[T]he most important of all lessons [from the Scriptures] is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion.”

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration:
hun, as a contagious pestilence,…those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or [who are] enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”

The Grandson of Richard Henry Lee(President of the Continental Congress) published a collection of works by the Founders in 1825. From those works he observed:
“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation!”
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
You should read a little R2 :lol2: It's all over the net.


The Founders not only chose not to establish federally any particular denomination of Christianity, they further never intended the First Amendment to become a vehicle to promote a pluralism of other religions.

Justice Story: “The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”
 
Top