Mr. Jefferson's Confirmation Hearing for Justice of the Supreme Court
Jefferson goes before Judiciary Committee
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting, July 1809
Considering the nomination of former President Thomas Jefferson to the Supreme Court:
Chairman: We're honored to have you to appear before us, Mr. Jeff … I mean, Mr. President. We thank you again for your outstanding service to our country, especially as president of the United States for the last eight years. We particularly honor you for originating the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State." We on this committee are concerned about giving any place to public displays of religiosity.
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting, July 1809
Considering the nomination of former President Thomas Jefferson to the Supreme Court:
Chairman: We're honored to have you to appear before us, Mr. Jeff … I mean, Mr. President. We thank you again for your outstanding service to our country, especially as president of the United States for the last eight years. We particularly honor you for originating the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State." We on this committee are concerned about giving any place to public displays of religiosity.
posted by BigBubba at 8:20 AM
![[Link to THOMAS Home Page]](http://thomas.loc.gov/images/link.gif)
7 Comments:
methinks that the actual and natural wall of separation between church and state is the human skull. Everything that chooses to remain within the confines of that skull and is afterwards voluntarily "acted" upon, can be called a man's religion... and everything that is normally rejected and unacted upon by the brain and soul within but MUST now be INVOLUNTARILY acted upon by the individual under a STATE threat of violence or force, can be called a man's duties to the STATE.
Now, I believe that the proclamation of a supplementary and legislated wall of separation meant that the skull's own wall was "penetrable", for sounds, sights, smells, tastes, and feelings all seem to be able to get through... some moved by the Holy Spirit, and some being forced through by servants and administrators of the state.
What the founders were trying to achieve was a noble thing, to keep the STATE from forcing the possessor of said skull, brain and soul to serve ends other than those they had prescribed in the US Constitution, which severly limited the powers of government and defined the areas subject to government regulation to matters concerning the provision for a common defense, establishment of justice, provisions for interstate commerce, and a few other related activities. They had wanted to allow the agency of the Holt Spirit to do its own work, and not try and usurp or influence that agency in any illegitimate manner.
Since said skull/ brain/ soul was also thought by the founders to have been "endowed by their Creator" it contained certain "inalienable" rights... for the thoughts contained therein served to enable the individual to pursue his life, liberty and happiness. Liberty implying "voluntary" or "freely chosen" actions, of one's own G_d given free-will.
And so this "penetrable wall" of the skull was strengthened and supplemented by a prohibition against the STATE FORCING men to do things not prescribed in the Constitution, like attending lectures, indoctrination briefings, etc. in an attempt to influence their voluntary actions (religion). This prohibition did NOT extend to or prohibit ANY PRIVATE individuals from practicing their own religions and expressing their own deeply held opinions and beliefs inside OR outside of involuntarily assembled activities and events. Only State Agents in cases where attendance was made "mandatory".
For even IF they "other" private individuals did speak out at mandatory events, each man's own brain/soul was reasonably capable of dismissing whatever they did or said, as guided by the Holy Spirit. And more importantly, THEY (private individuals) had no capacity or power to FORCE him to act in any particular manner based upon what they might say.
But of course, when government began FORCING ALL parents to send their children to public schools... or subpoenaed suspected criminals and witnesses and mandated their attendance in courts, they felt a need to ban prayers or other activites not germain to the government's charter, for it could be construed as prescribing or proscribing additional state duties upon citizens and therefore influencing and affecting a man's voluntarily held beliefs and subsequent actions.
Had school attendance remained "voluntary" (a parental, not a student's, choice), there would have been no conflict if the public schools performed daily prayer rituals or recited the pledge of allegiance. It was a corruption and over-extension of government power by well-meaning federal and local officials to institute laws concerning mandatory school attendance, and the federal and state funding of education created this apparent conflict. Government over-reached when it began forcing parents to send their children to school.
But hey, who's FORCED to play football. May there always be a prayer before, and AFTER, the game!
And who's FORCED to read a monument to the ten commandments sitting inside a courthouse or view a religious display located on public property? Those are all "voluntary" actions chosen by those summoned to the property or simply passing by.
-FJ (I know, it could use some work)
samwich, does that have something to do with the content of the article? I believe that G-d has established His throne for judgement? Trying to save Him some time and trouble?
You do remember what Jesus? "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (from John 8:7 (New International Version)
Farmer John, the problem is that the pretentiously ignorant pseudo intellectual progressive liberal secular humanists and demoracists believe that the contents of their skulls are far superior to that of the great unwashed masses. They therefore do all mankind a favor by interpreting (like the battlefield guide) what we are seeing. Religious symbols, public prayer and references to G-d only confuse the unwashed masses and make interpretation of what we are supposed to believe very difficult for the priests of secular humanism and the demoracists.
BB,
I agree. And since we are all obviously too ignorant to voluntarily choose what to believe or not believe, they (so-called progressive secular humanists) are making it their mission to prevent the things THEY feel are NOT to be believed from reaching our eyes and ears.
It sounds very "noble" of them to protect us so, but defintely defies and represents a corruption of the oft stated, but seldom properly understood, original intentions of the Founders regarding "separation of the powers" and church and state... for it is a limitation placed upon GOVERNMENT... and the so-called progressive secular humanists within it and should apply to THEIR ideas as well, not simply to formally established and announced religions. For they constitute a "religion" that denies it is a religion.
It's an "idealogy"... and we all know where these G_dless progressive secular idealogies have gotten us in the twentieth century... hundreds of millions of deaths.
Hence "Congress shall make no law law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-FJ
Indeed there is a problem with people who want to put words in the Constitution's, er, mouth. My favorite of course will always be those who have very interesting notions about what "free speech" is and what the Constitution has to say about it.
Thought I'd also mention to Bubba that I have zero problem with saying Judeo-Christian principles played a big role in the founding of this country.
OK, kumbaya, kumbaya. I'm off to the Philippines and I hope to rejoin you late next week. I have no idea what to expect: hopefully a big Catholic wedding that lasts three days and lots of food, karaoke, media detox and none of the scary stuff the State Dept. warns me about. G_d bless, gentlemen.
My next door neighbor's father in law is getting ready for a trip back to the Phillipines. Be careful they have been demonstrating about those Marines accused of rape.
I envy you norm, I was in Manila the night they lifted Marshal Law in '76(?) and had one of the more memorable evennings of my life, as people were out in Ruiz Park all night socializing and having a wonderful time. I played volleyball with a group of students from the local university all night. I would be hard pressed to find many nations I'd be willing to settle in, but the Phillipines would definitely make the list.
Have some panset(sic)[noodles] and spring rolls for me. Wash them all down with the local San Miguel Beer (w/o preservatives). Food doesn't come much better.
-FJ
Post a Comment
<< Home