posted
I was listening to NPR (as usual) on my way to work... I think it was "Talk of the Nation"... and the guest said that the Founding Fathers always assumed that we would have a Church of America like England does.
Never heard of that before...but sounds facinating. And kinda makes sense. America does have it's own brand of home-made christianity. That's actually one of the things that interests me about LDS, because it is a relgion from and for America. Well... it's international now isn't it...?
Anyway... cultural concensus and stories that bind a culture together are important (as OSC always says) so I can see why the FF might want a C of A.
[Not that I'd personally want a C of A... just an interesting idea.]
[ June 29, 2005, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would the founding fathers want a "Church of America" and then put the seperation of church and state clause in the constitution? Furthermore, why would their own writings be so rife with sentiments denouncing established religion? Sounds to me like someone isn't actually reading anything- just making crap up.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they "always assumed" there would be a Church of America, I imagine that's why they put in all those preventative measures TO KEEP IT FROM EVER EVER HAPPENING.
EDIT: Or, in other words, what Primal said.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were founding fathers who wnated and believed that this would happen. Patrick Henry comes to mind as someone who thought that America should take very strict measures to make it a "Christian" nation. The "founding fathers" weren't anywhere near as united in purpose or beliefs as using the term would lead you to believe. There were a large range of political, religious, and social division among them. The crafting of America was in many ways a great compromise. I consider we as a nation very lucky that the strongest, smartest people pushed as hard as they did for the ideal of personal liberty.
Of course, I think one of the more telling things about the weight of the masses is (besides the slavery thing, which I think is less clear-cut) the revocation in the few states that allowed it of the ability to vote from women and free blacks in the decades following the founding of the country.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they may be going further back... many of the original colonists coming to America for "religious freedom" were actually looking for the freedom to establish religiously segregated enclaves where they could keep other religious groups outside to a certain extent-- Quakers and Puritains come immediately to mind.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would the founding fathers want a "Church of America" and then put the seperation of church and state clause in the constitution?
Maybe I'm misremembering, and if I am, shame on me, but I didn't think there was a clause in the constitution about seperation of church and state. There IS an amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion.
I thought that the whole seperation of church and state thing came from a letter written by one of the founding fathers (Jefferson?), and has tons of legal precidence, but does not actually exist in the constitution.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't use the word separation, but its clear from writings that several of the authors, at very least, intended it to mean a sort of separation.
And it doesn't just guarantee freedom, it says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is a phrase with many meanings. The next clause is what forbids "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- note how that's a separate consideration, so you'd be hard pressed to argue that the first clause was just doing that as well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thats what the bill of rights actually says about freedom of religion. Its a bit more far reaching then just Freedom of religion, its where the whole seperation of church and state comes from. With those two points the government can't make a state religion or let a religon take over the state. Make sense?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Well, they may be going further back... many of the original colonists coming to America for "religious freedom" were actually looking for the freedom to establish religiously segregated enclaves where they could keep other religious groups outside to a certain extent-- Quakers and Puritains come immediately to mind.
If they're talking about original colonist, then they're really stretching the definition of "Founding Father". Personally, I'd limit that to those who specifically had a hand in drafting and ratifying the documents upon which our current government is founded.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Side note to the topic: I remember going to the National Archives and seeing what was apparently an early draft of the Bill of Rights...
The Establishment Clause was so heavily marked and corrected that it was almost unreadable.
The impression I got was that they were extraordinarily careful about that wording... which is why it bothered me when the SCOTUS ruled a while back that Native Americans couldn't use Peyote in their religious rituals.
But then again, Ritual Satanism and Dark Magic do have some practices that are, perhaps, best prevented in their free excercise.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
TO KEEP IT FROM EVER EVER HAPPENING.
