Supreme Court once confirmed: We are a Christian nation

[GMDino]

Fortunately it was just one of those activist judges.  

Quote:U.S. Supreme Court stated in the 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, written by Justice David Josiah Brewer (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): “This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus … (recited) that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered’ …



“The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 … and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided ‘that they be not against the true Christian faith’ … The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 … commenced the grant in these words: ‘… in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness …’ Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony … in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.


“The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith … a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia’ … The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ‘… And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union … there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God … to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess … of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.’


“In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘… no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of … their religious profession and worship …’


“Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’ … These declarations … reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”


Justice Brewer continued in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States: “While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law … not Christianity with an established church … but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’ And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: ‘The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice. … We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’


“And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) this Court … observed: ‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania’ … If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.


“Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen’; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. 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. …”


“Justice Brewer continued: “Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780) ‘It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe …


“As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth … authorize … the several towns, parishes, precincts … to make suitable provision … for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…'

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/supreme-court-once-confirmed-we-are-a-christian-nation/#asyZHeP8ptz1psTA.99

[Belsnickel]

Activist judges, always getting in the way of the elected officials that made clear almost a century before that this is not a Christian nation.

In all seriousness, it is interesting to read about this case and discover how much the more "textualist" justices do see Justice Brewer as an activist judge. Scalia himself called this opinion an "invitation to judicial lawmaking."

[*michaelsean*]

I'm going to assume that you can see the future and are responding to something yet to be posted.

[*bfine32*]

Guess I'm confused. Does this support the notion that we are a Nation built on Christian principles?

[GMDino]

(03-28-2016, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going to assume that you can see the future and are responding to something yet to be posted.

This story was shared on my Facebook feed.  I thought it was interesting.

Being as activist judges and all....

I didn't do a bunch of research on it so it it curious to hear Matt's info on it.

[GMDino]

(03-28-2016, 06:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess I'm confused. Does this support the notion that we are a Nation built on Christian principles?

I guess it supports that the Supreme Court once said we were...even though they really kinda said are laws are based on it even though we can't say it is the official religion of the US.

I'm just surprised this is the first I've seen of it given the huge arguments about it over the recent years.

[Yojimbo]

Does he mention the Consitution at all? I'm pretty sure that's what he is supposed to be ruling based on what is in the Consitution, not the fact that some people say prayers before meetings.

[Belsnickel]

(03-28-2016, 09:25 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Does he mention the Consitution at all? I'm pretty sure that's what he is supposed to be ruling based on what is in the Consitution, not the fact that some people say prayers before meetings.

That is not what they were deciding. It was about a law disallowing importing foreign labor and the decision was that clergy should not be considered foreign labor even if they really were because that was not the spirit of the law.

[BFritz21]

(03-28-2016, 06:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess it supports that the Supreme Court once said we were...even though they really kinda said are laws are based on it even though we can't say it is the official religion of the US.

I'm just surprised this is the first I've seen of it given the huge arguments about it over the recent years.

See, I see no problems with this because the separation of Church and State should just mean that religion can't be forced on people and that they shouldn't be forced into a denomination, but the fundamentals that this country is based upon are Christian fundamentals, as noted by our founding fathers:

Quote:Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."


This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."



Again, note the emphasis: "We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

Most people are clueless to that fact and use the founding fathers' separation of Church and State to be anarchists.

I agree that no one should be forced to go to Church or worship in any way, but to argue that God wasn't the basis for morality in this country is ignorant and people need to do their homework.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-28-2016, 10:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: See, I see no problems with this because the separation of Church and State should just mean that religion can't be forced on people and that they shouldn't be forced into a denomination, but the fundamentals that this country is based upon are Christian fundamentals, as noted by our founding fathers:


Most people are clueless to that fact and use the founding fathers' separation of Church and State to be anarchists.

I agree that no one should be forced to go to Church or worship in any way, but to argue that God wasn't the basis for morality in this country is ignorant and people need to do their homework.

Apparently the Godly morality they had was slaying Indians and owning slaves was all good. We don't need religion to have morals.

[*Nately120*]

(03-29-2016, 01:01 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Apparently the Godly morality they had was slaying Indians and owning slaves was all good. We don't need religion to have morals.

Ehh, god is obviously pretty ok with killing non-white people for financial gain.  I assume Christ himself would have intervened if he had any objections to America claiming to be so Christian, after all.

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-28-2016, 10:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Most people are clueless to that fact and use the founding fathers' separation of Church and State to be anarchists.

No....We use a much more concise document that the founding fathers devised to make sure that anyone that truly does their homework, would then understand that your conclusion is false.  I would point you in the direction of that document, however since you seem to be so interested in others doing their homework, Imma let you flounder around looking for it.  In the end I neither care if you find it or not.  I neither care if you learn form it or not.  Your, or anyone else's opinion upon the "Christianness" of our country has little to no effect on the truth and fact that it is not.  

[*PhilHos*]

(03-29-2016, 01:14 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, god is obviously pretty ok with killing non-white people for financial gain.  I assume Christ himself would have intervened if he had any objections to America claiming to be so Christian, after all.

You are aware, right, that the vast majority of people in the Bible are "non-white" (including Jesus)?

[Rotobeast]

(03-29-2016, 11:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You are aware, right, that the vast majority of people in the Bible are "non-white" (including Jesus)?

Yeah....everyone knows Jesus was a black jew.

[*Nately120*]

(03-29-2016, 11:22 AM)PhilHos Wrote: You are aware, right, that the vast majority of people in the Bible are "non-white" (including Jesus)?

Oh, I'm very aware of this.

[tigerseye]

The Constitution was based on Christian beliefs and morals. The founding fathers own comments point to this as being the case.

The actions of individuals and our government for that matter haven't always been christian (as has been pointed out) but the Constitution was originally based on Christian beliefs.

The Nazis called themselves christians as they killed the Jews in the war but that didn't mean they were actually christians. Every person living in and taking action against others in a Christian nation is not necessarily a christian.

There are evil SOBs everywhere and some of them call them selves Christians but they actually aren't christian at all. So you shouldn't base your views or opinions of Christianity on the actions of those individuals. Actually that would be what people would do that are trying to bring Christianity down.

I can call myself whatever I want but that doesn't make it so.

[Vlad]

(03-29-2016, 01:01 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:  We don't need religion to have morals.

Of course there are good atheists and bad religious people.

Playing devils advocate here...if we dont need religion to have morals then wouldnt good and evil or right and wrong be just opinions?  What if my opinion was that murder was not wrong?

Is the act of bestiality moral or immoral?

If you were a Jew running away seeking refuge from the Nazis in Poland, whos door would you rather knock on...a Polish priest or nuns, or the commoner?

If any of you self proclaimed atheists we being hunted and killed for whatever reason, you would place your trust in a priest as well.

So whenever morality dispute arises check out what god says...problem solved!

[Vlad]

(03-28-2016, 10:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: See, I see no problems with this because the separation of Church and State should just mean that religion can't be forced on people and that they shouldn't be forced into a denomination, but the fundamentals that this country is based upon are Christian fundamentals, as noted by our founding fathers:


Most people are clueless to that fact and use the founding fathers' separation of Church and State to be anarchists.

I agree that no one should be forced to go to Church or worship in any way, but to argue that God wasn't the basis for morality in this country is ignorant and people need to do their homework.

Actually "separation of church and state" is never mentioned in the Constitution. It was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Danbury Baptists who had asked for Jeffersons intervention regarding a religious matter in Connecticut.
Jefferson said sorry cant help you... for there must be a wall of separation between the Feds and religious matters of the states.

Leftist judges have taken that phrase and ran with it...cant have the 10 Commandments displayed in a judges courtroom because it violates the separation of church and state clause to which there is no such clause lol.


Congress shall make no law with regards to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.   No official religion is all it says.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: Of course there are good atheists and bad religious people.

You start of strong with this.

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: Playing devils advocate here...if we dont need religion to have morals then wouldnt good and evil or right and wrong be just opinions?  What if my opinion was that murder was not wrong?

Then you would support war and the death penalty.

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: Is the act of bestiality moral or immoral?

It is wrong as they are a different species than cannot consent.

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: If you were a Jew running away seeking refuge from the Nazis in Poland, whos door would you rather knock on...a Polish priest or nuns, or the commoner?

As if the priests were in a big hurry to help the Jews? There's a reason the Pope apologized for the Church's behavior in Germany during WWII.

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: If any of you self proclaimed atheists we being hunted and killed for whatever reason, you would place your trust in a priest as well.

Remember that opening statement you made in this post? Yeah, you just forgot.

There is no logic behind that statement...just your opinion that a priest would protect someone.

I'd imagine every parent of every child abused by a priest felt the same way.

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2016, 08:32 AM)Vlad Wrote: Of course there are good atheists and bad religious people.

Playing devils advocate here...if we dont need religion to have morals then wouldnt good and evil or right and wrong be just opinions?  What if my opinion was that murder was not wrong?

Is the act of bestiality moral or immoral?

If you were a Jew running away seeking refuge from the Nazis in Poland, whos door would you rather knock on...a Polish priest or nuns, or the commoner?

If any of you self proclaimed atheists we being hunted and killed for whatever reason, you would place your trust in a priest as well.

So whenever morality dispute arises check out what god says...problem solved!

Morality is a societal construct that has evolved into what we have today over time. We know this because we can see a primitive form of morality amongst chimpanzees. They form societal norms (the early stages of what we see as morality) in their groups. The only reason that some people give ownership of this morality to a faith is because it provides it with a degree of authority which, without, makes morality much more subjective and pointless. Within society we have punishments for disturbing the norms through criminal law, but there is no reward for adhering to them. Enter religion and the idea of a better life after death.

It should be noted that I am saying this all as a Christian.