Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[DOC]

Would you please demonstrate more respect to honorable DOC. He is a busy person! He will get back to us mortals as soon as "His" time permits.

Oh, I'll be back, I'm in no hurry.

 

[DOC]

Kennedy is wrong, though. Driesbach devotes an entire chapter of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State to tracing the history of the metaphor, and concludes that early uses of it go back at least as far as Martin Luther. He even suggests that Jefferson was probably unaware of Roger Williams' use of it, but would have been more likely to have read the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, who in the 1590s (half a century before Williams) wrote:

You haven't proved Kennedy wrong about where Jefferson got the metaphor -- you just offered another author's opinion. Wouldn't it seem more likely that the smooth well read Jefferson would use would use a quote from a famous Baptist when dealing with other Baptists.

 

[DOC]

I guess the rules say I need to have 15 posts before I can list URL's. So I need to make 2 more posts. I'll get to those other questions eventially as time permits.

If you all want to learn about America's Christian Heritage read anything by David Barton and his "Wallbuilders" organization.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you all want to learn about America's Christian Heritage read anything by David Barton and his "Wallbuilders" organization.

D. James Kennedy? David Barton? Wow! What's next, you going to cite John Hagee or Kent Hovind?

Barton is an accomdationist BSer who has taken some suspect 19th and 20th century writings and created a whole myth surrounding chruch/state in the period of the Framers.

I'm quite familiar with Barton's work as well as Kennedy's offal on this issue, but have you ever read anything by Rob Boston or Kramnick and Moore's The Godless Constitution?

 

[Beady]

I'll get to those other questions eventially as time permits.

What is it with "time"? Is this an admission that you started a rather involved conversation for which you don't have either the time or the interest to adequately pursue?

Your lack of involvement with this thread has been noted by others. If you don't have the time, why should we?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

From Kennedy's website:Response: Never heard of him here. And if he did try to influence our politics, please rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying -

He's basically a frustrated Christian Reconstructionist.

It was with great irony at TAM, on Sunday morning, Randi pointed out that just up the road from where we 200ish Skeptics met were 20,000+ members of Kennedy's congregation gathered to hear him spew his nonsense. TAM's closer to 600 (or is it 800 now) but that's still a far cry from the 20,000+ Kennedy brings in every week.

 

[DOC]

What is it with "time"? Is this an admission that you started a rather involved conversation for which you don't have either the time or the interest to adequately pursue?

Your lack of involvement with this thread has been noted by others. If you don't have the time, why should we?

People's comments should be able to stand on there own merits. If I don't respond quickly enough than I don't respond quickly enough. This thread isn't about me its about the church going Jefferson.

 

[wahrheit]

It was with great irony at TAM, on Sunday morning, Randi pointed out that just up the road from where we 200ish Skeptics met were 20,000+ members of Kennedy's congregation gathered to hear him spew his nonsense. TAM's closer to 600 (or is it 800 now) but that's still a far cry from the 20,000+ Kennedy brings in every week.

Very depressing, indeed.

 

[Ladewig]

What does the ACLU, liberals, etc. say churches can't do?

Quoted for importance. Relevant questions often get overlooked in threads that move in fits and spurts.

 

[ceo_esq]

You haven't proved Kennedy wrong about where Jefferson got the metaphor -- you just offered another author's opinion.

According to you, Kennedy said that "the wall metaphor actually first came from Roger Williams" (italics mine), which is wrong. As for Jefferson's proximate source, that wasn't where Kennedy was necessarily wrong, though he may well have been.

 

[Cleon]

If you all want to learn about America's Christian Heritage read anything by David Barton and his "Wallbuilders" organization.

I don't think anyone has questioned that there is a strong Christian component in this history of the United States. The Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Great Awakenings...There is a history of Christian fundamentalism here, no doubt about it. Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson didn't come out of a Cracker Jack box.

However, the founding fathers (framers, whatever you want to call them) were largely the product of another movement, the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment movement stressed belief in scientific achievement and a move away from dependence on religion to explain the universe; Deism became very fashionable among European and American intellectuals. Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine in particular were very active in trying to promote Deism as a religious philosophy.

This period also gave birth to intellectuals like John Locke and Adam Smith, which is why you see many of their ideas in the founding documents of the United States--and you see very little mention of religion in the same documents. The Constitution does not mention God at all*, and other documents--such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation--use very neutral language ("Creator," "Governor of the World") that was common in Deist writings.

This was intentional. They saw the formation of the United States a secular undertaking. Not an anti-Christian undertaking, but a secular one, where freedom of religion was guaranteed and affairs of church and state were kept separate. Or, to paraphrase a certain Jewish philosopher, a society where that which was Caesar's was rendered unto Caesar, and that which was God's was rendered unto God.



(*Save for the reference "Year of Our Lord," which was a standard naming convention, much like when a textbook refers to a year "a.d." There is really no religious connotation--in fact, "a.d." stands for "Anno Domini," Latin for "Year of Our Lord.")

 

[Dr Adequate]

Jefferson who, by the way, was out of the country when the Bill of Rights was created ...

... by James Madison.

Let's see what James Madison had to say on the subject, shall we?

There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison; Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

Now notice the 1st Admendment "only" says what "Congress" can't do. It says nothing about what the "church" can't do. And yet groups (liberals, ACLU, etc.) have completely turned this around to say what the Church can and can not do.

Do you have any evidence for this strange assertion?

 

[DOC]

According to you, Kennedy said that "the wall metaphor actually first came from Roger Williams" (italics mine), which is wrong. As for Jefferson's proximate source, that wasn't where Kennedy was necessarily wrong, though he may well have been.

I went back and listened to the tape and Kennedy actually said

" he {Jefferson} took the language actually from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America, who talked about a wall being erected around the garden of the church to protect it. And so Jefferson took that same phrase and said that this wall protected the church not against hostile Indians or worldly things but against the federal government that had been newly appointed".

So Kennedy wasn't wrong -- I was the one who slightly misquoted the audio tape of Kennedy. But actually Kennedy's words are stronger than my misquote because he said Jefferson actually "took the language from Roger Williams" whereas I just said the wall metaphor first came from Williams.

 

[DOC]

... by James Madison.

Let's see what James Madison had to say on the subject, shall we?

There remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison; Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

Do you have any evidence for this strange assertion?

What's so strange about the first Admendment. As I stated, it deals only with what "Congress" can't do not what the church can't do. And yet liberal groups rarely talk about what Congress can't do regarding religion, only what citizens and the churches can't do.

For example the gov't has come into the church and restricted a preacher from simply telling his congregation who he believes should be elected. His freedom of speech has been taken away inside his own church. The rational for taking away his freedom of speech is the church is tax exempt. But federal income tax wasn't created until 130 years after the Bill of Rights.

Federal taxation should have no effect on your freedom of speech (inside or outside the church). And I have a strong feeling Jefferson would feel the same way.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I went back and listened to the tape and Kennedy actually said

Why would you trust anything D. James Kennedy has to say on this topic? He's so blinded by agenda he wouldn't recognize truth if I appeared before him fully formed on a scallop shell.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What's so strange about the first Admendment.

Nothing, it's a very sensible law.

As I stated, it deals only with what "Congress" can't do not what the church can't do.

This is perfectly true.

And yet liberal groups rarely talk about what Congress can't do regarding religion, only what citizens and the churches can't do.

But this is not true. As you would know if you listened to what "liberal groups" actually say, instead of reading lying trash about "liberal groups" on the websites of halfwitted rightwing nutjobs.

For example the gov't has come into the church and restricted a preacher from simply telling his congregation who he believes should be elected.

Which preacher? Name him. When did this happen?

His freedom of speech has been taken away inside his own church. The rational for taking away his freedom of speech is the church is tax exempt.

I think you've got this a little bit confused. No, wait, I mean a lot confused.

I mean, you've got this as back-to-front as you can possibly get.

It is not freedom of speech which is taken from a political organization masquerading as a church, but their tax-exempt status. They can say whatever they like, but they can't claim the tax benefits pertaining to a church when they're actually a political body. Because an institute preaching the doctrine of (for example) the Blessed George Bush is not an institution of religion and so is not protected by the Establishment Clause.

But federal income tax wasn't created until 130 years after the Bill of Rights.

The case which you have failed to cite, possibly because it's never actually happened, has damn all to do with income tax, since phoney churches are not people and do not have personal income.

 

[Ladewig]

For example the gov't has come into the church and restricted a preacher from simply telling his congregation who he believes should be elected.

Which preacher? Name him. When did this happen?

The only case I could find was the Church at Pierce Creek in Alabama, but they actually paid for a newspaper ad saying that voting for Bill Clinton was a sin. link

Due to misinformation spread by advocates of church-based electioneering, some clergy are confused about federal tax law and how it impacts political activity in houses of worship. For example, some religious leaders might wonder what constitutes an endorsement of a candidate. Prohibited activities include letters of endorsement printed on the letterhead of the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Distribution of campaign literature, pulpit endorsements of candidates, display of campaign signs on religiously owned property and other similar activities also clearly indicate partisan involvement in an election. (It should be noted, however, that clergy may endorse candidates as individuals in forums outside the church or work on behalf of candidates during their personal time.)

Penalties for violating federal law include loss of tax-exempt status or financial penalties imposed on officials of the house of worship in question. This is more than a theoretical concern; the IRS does enforce the law in this area. The Church at Pierce Creek near Binghamton, N.Y., lost its tax-exempt status in 1995 after the IRS determined it had violated federal tax law by publishing a full-page ad in USA Today in late October of 1992 advising people that voting for presidential candidate Bill Clinton was a sin and soliciting tax-exempt donations to defray the cost of the ad. The church sued in federal court to regain its tax-exempt status, but a federal appellate court ruled unanimously that the IRS was right to revoke the church's tax-exempt status.

It should be noted that the church was not required to pay any taxes at all despite losing the court case.

 

[Ladewig]

. But federal income tax wasn't created until 130 years after the Bill of Rights.

Federal taxation should have no effect on your freedom of speech (inside or outside the church). And I have a strong feeling Jefferson would feel the same way.

And the law restricting ALL non-profit organizations from endorsing specific candidates was passed in 1954.

ETA: and the ACLU had nothing to do with Congress passing the law so you are a little off base in claiming that the ACLU is "saying what the Church can and can not do." Unless, of course you are referring to other things that churches can or cannot do.

 

[blutoski]

For example the gov't has come into the church and restricted a preacher from simply telling his congregation who he believes should be elected. His freedom of speech has been taken away inside his own church. The rational for taking away his freedom of speech is the church is tax exempt. But federal income tax wasn't created until 130 years after the Bill of Rights.

Federal taxation should have no effect on your freedom of speech (inside or outside the church). And I have a strong feeling Jefferson would feel the same way.

This may be true: it follows that freedom of speech should have no effect on taxation. You are arguing that the tax-exempt status of churches is unconsitutional.

You must take this to your congressman immediately! Why are you wasting time on the JREF forum when you have discovered such a widespread flaunting of justice?

I redirect your attention to my earlier post: the government is in its right to insist on non-political behavior of those who are suckling on the taxpayer's teat. Churches are one the biggest categories of welfare cases in the US and Canada. Tax exemption is already testing the intention of the First Amendment. They chose this deal. Why are you trying to crash the tax-free ride?

 

[DOC]

Just a little Info. The bill to prevent tax exempt churches and charities from endorsing political candidates was introduced by senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954.

The IRS has sent letters to churches who have endorsed candidates. If you punch in IRS letter and pulpit on google you should be able to read the sermon and also the IRS Letter.

Also churches are not allowed to show preference in inviting certain speakers to speak at functions.