"I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also." Thomas Jefferson\n\n "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay first chief justice\n\n"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."   Benjamin Rush signer of the declaration of independence.\n\n[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.  John Adams.
127362
To the Founders of the United States of America, the Bible was an important resource to them. If what they believed was not in the Bible, it did not belong in America.
255455
that Dr Benjamin Rush the founder of public schools felt that the bible should be the central book of public schools. he wrote.  \n\n    I lament that we waste so much time and money in  punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them... we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government ; that is, the universal education of our youth in the princeples of Christianity by means of the bible.... equility among mankind... respect for just laws... and sober and frugal virtues.  \n\n  and then there is this statement by President John Adams.\n\n  We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constituation was made only for a relious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.\n\n  hope this helps. both quotes come from Under God written by Toby Mac and Michael Tait from dctalk
373790
Thomas Jefferson wasn't very religious and was very in favor of the Separation of Church and State.  He felt that that is why there were people there they wanted to be free to worship as they pleased, and that for that to be possible the State shouldn't be in favor of one particular religion.
446898
Thomas Jefferson, the " Jesus Christ " of Atheism.  \n\nI'm grateful that you are using historical resources to illustrate you opinion. A favor, if you will.  In your next question, would you provide a link to this?  I'm developing an interest.  thank you.
106045
Freedom (as defined in the Bible) is the freedom from slavery to sin and death.\nIn other words a Christian can do whatever he or she wants to do!\nNow the question becomes, what does a Christian want to do?\nA true believer will desire to emulate Christ in thought, word and deed, and Jesus never sinned, so that desire produces an abhorrence for sin in the life of the believer which is not based on fear of punishment, but rather is motivated by love for the One who set them free.\nThe grace of God is not only the unmerited favor God bestows on mankind (in the form of salvation through Jesus Christ), but in the case of the believer, it is also the supernatural ability given by God through which we have both the desire and the ability to obey God.\nThe Bible is certainly clear on the fact that Christians should obey the laws of the land (wherever they happen to live), until those laws transgress a higher law, in which case God is to be obeyed, not man.\nIf congress passed a law that said, "wear a polka-dotted shirt on all Saturdays" I would go out and buy a polka-dotted shirt to wear on Saturdays. If congress passed a law saying, "Christianity is a clear and present danger to National security, and everyone must renounce Christ" I would willingly suffer whatever consequences refusal to renounce might bring.\nEither way, I am free to obey God, and no one can take that freedom away from me (since I have no longer enslaved to the fear of death, I am totally free).
39859
Jefferson was the author of the Declaration (1776), Governor of Virginia (1779-81), US Secretary of State (1789-1795), Vice President (1797-1801) and President (1801-1809).\nHe was a strong beleiver in individualism and individual autonomy, free markets, and limited government.   \n\nJohn Locke is consider the origin of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental ("unalienable") right of humanity.  Locke wrote of the rights ot "life, liberty and estate (or property)."  Jefferson thought the right to "estate" was too closely tied to the concept of "feudalism."  The idea of phrasing it "life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth" was considered, but eventually the current phraseology won out.  In any event, the idea that life and liberty were fundamental rights had previously been expressed by Locke and others.\n\nYour question is really too broad to be covered in a brief answer here.  I suggest looking up James Madison, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia or some other encyclopedic site.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/
577462
I beg to differ with Swordsmith, his reasoning is a bit dull (pun intended).  For example, he sites the First Amendment to undergird his argument.  Said amendment I'll quote, "Congress shall make no 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."  The plain intent in historical context is this:  the federal government cannot *establish* a particular Christian sect *by federal law* as the official church of the nation (as was the Anglican church in Britain) nor prohibit the freedom of worship (*free exercise*) for other Christian groups outside of the Church of England within the nation.  As an example Virginia, like some of the other states, did have a state established church [1].  The state established churches at the time were not disestablished by the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but rather by each states' legislature...and definitely not because the legislators thought that they should prohibit the state government "from taking any religion's side" with regard to the foundation of law.\n\nAs to this nation's founding document -- the Declaration of Independence [2] -- to say that it religion (in context, the common precepts of Christianity to be found in the Holy Bible) had nothing to do with law is ridiculous.  Let's take a look:\n\n* The signers based their actions to separate from Britan upon the Law of God (paragraph 1).  Again, in historical context we are not talking about any god: not Allah, nor Budda, nor Krishna, nor the Force, nor a secular general concept of a higher power, etc. but rather the Almighty God revealed in the Bible. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."\n\n* That the rights they had were given by God and saw them as truth, not their opinion against the opinion that sided with King George III, Parliment, and their sympathizers in the Colonies (paragraph 2).  "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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  If Swordsmith is correct then the King and Parliment were correct in rejecting the Colonies representatives appeals based on this basis (surprising since the Colonist's view had its source in English law.[3])  Sir William Blackstone, author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England and a contemporary with our nation's Founders, explained this foundation at length. (By the way, the Commentaries were a top seller in the American colonies.) The following Blackstone quote is a bit long, but I include it because it gives you some context of what foundation our nation's founders' stood.\n\n"Law, in its most general form and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.\n\nThus, when the supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to wh
36872
The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, America's first Republican president.\n\n\nFour score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. \n\nNow we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. \n\nBut, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth.
511343
You already know that the phrase does not appear, therefore the provocative "I'm waiting..."  You already know that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."  \n\nI'm also sure that you are already aware of the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."   You might also want to recall the Treaty of Tripoli, in which it is stated that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."\n\nObviously, if the founders wished to create a government in which religion would hold sway, or have a formal say in civil law or liberties, they could have easily done so.  They did not create a theocracy, but a democratic republic.  All of the above has been primarily interpreted to support separation of church and state, and the Supreme Court has upheld this "notion" time and time again.  It never fails to amaze me how some people persist in believing the founders intended this country to be based on religious (Christian) tenets.  They weren't idiots - if they wished that to be the case they could have clearly laid it out as such.  Their personal writings and letters reflect controversy of feeling over the matter, and quotes can be found to reflect both positions.  The proof in the pudding is that they chose to erect that wall, and did not choose to install a government run by religious leaders, and made sure those would be leaders had no power to do so.  Considering that the founders had widely differing religious leanings and knew the pitfalls of a government led by the "church," it probably wasn't a hard decision to reach.  The difficulty most likely lay in the language to be used.  There were religious leaders of that day who wished for nothing more than a theocracy to be created.  The founders had to reach a consensus on how to word the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to please everybody, and that included the theocratists.  They did such a good job that we are still arguing over it today.  We trust our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they have done so time and time again, in favor of the wall.  It's an integral part of our government, this wall, and if it weren't the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of our nation would be dictating our laws and civil rights.  A scary thought, that.
523458
Looking more closely at this issue, I can see why you want a specific source.\n\nThe only person who I can find that claims Justice Thomas said this is Frank J Ranelli, in his piece "One Nation Under “Whose God is it Anyway?” from October 27, 2006.  As a columnist, he doesn't seem to feel the need to cite his sources.\n\nAnd the thing is, IF Justice Thomas did say this, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he has said at other times.  Specifically, in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow he puts in a long opinion about what the constitution has to say about the government's ability to suppress or endorse religion (link 1, below).  The specific quote that interests me is this:\n\n"The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."\n\nIn other words, Justice Thomas is of the opinion that it is PERFECTLY OKAY for any one or even all states to declare a state religion and eforce it.  Just not the federal government.  In other sections of his opinion on that case, he even says that other decisions which made other forms of religious expression illegal are just plain wrong.\n\nThus, if he DID make the statement that Ranelli says he did (which I cannot find an actual source for anywhere), it would seem to be contrary to his views expressed when he is actually doing his job.  A legally enforced, punishable, state-based religion is apparently peachy keen to him.  Yikes.
188701
you are right. and i see another piece of misinformation cropping up as well.  our founding fathers were not christian.  one was an atheist and the others were all Diest (belief in the clockwork structure of the universe.  God made it all, wound it up, and lets it go.  God does not take a personal or vested interest in any part of his creation.).  So no knowledge of the Treaty of Tripoli or that there were NO Christian Founding Fathers of America.
323943
HEY DUMMY (jake) - were you bible-home-schooled???\n\nThe "GUY" you are referring to who talked about church and state separation was THOMAS JEFFERSON.  (you idiot)\n\nIn the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.\n\nThe phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."\n\nJames Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
26221
The following is text of the letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." It is true that the Constitution never states the phrase "seperation of church and state", but it is hard to play semanitics on such plain language and infer that this is not what the founders had in mind. So there is a legal obligation to seperate church and state. Congress can not choose a favorite nor limit any religion from practicing its beliefs.
249773
Memorable Quotes: I learned that when you are willing to make sacrifices for a great cause, you will never be alone, because you will have divine companionship and the support of good people. This same faith and cosmic companionship sustained me after my husband was assassinated, and gave me the strength to make my contribution to carrying forward his unfinished work. \n"I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation." \n\n"Segregation was wrong when it was forced by white people, and I believe it is still wrong when it is requested by black people." \n\n"Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul."\n\n"The value of life in our cities has become as cheap as the price of a gun." \n\n"In this country. we vigorously regulate the sale of medicine and severely limit the advertising of cigarettes because of their effect on human health. But we allow virtually anyone in America to buy a gun and virtually everyone in the nation to see graphic violence." \n\n"When I say I was married to the cause, I was married to my husband whom I loved -- I learned to love, it wasn't love at first sight -- but I also became married to the cause. It was my cause, and that's the way I felt about it. So when my husband was no longer there, then I could continue in that cause, and I prayed that God would give me the direction for my life....But then I finally determined that it was the King Center, because Martin's message and his meaning were so powerful....So I felt that my role, then, was to develop an institution, to institutionalize his philosophy, his principles of nonviolence and his methodology of social change, and that's what I have spent my years doing."
347476
You should read a biography of Thomas Jefferson.  There are several that deal with his views on natural law and Deism.
553169
Voltaire voiced a truism.  Presently there are many examples of his adage.\n\nAnd I agree that God is a necessity, whether there really is one or not - we need a God. \n\nMan needs to believe there is a super being to keep him in line,  to prevent pandemic anarchy/lawlessness, powerlessness and hopelessness \n\nLet's show how it works in the political realm. \n\nTo further his own agenda,  Bush found it necessary to fabricated a reason for the 'war' with Iraq.\n\nHe conjured up reason after reason until the public no longer remembers the earliest lies, but defends and swears by one of the lies.\n\n\nSame difference - Man creates what's missing even when it can be proven that it's not there..
346856
Pat Robertson says the goal of Christians should be Dominion over this government and the country.  Some have gone so far as to suggest that if the govt. does not support their agenda they will not support the govt.  Some are pressuring Universities to not teach tolerance or they will cause  trouble for those schools.  They exert enormous pressure on the politics of  today, and many of their positions are intolerant. This puts them at odds with the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and poses thoughtful questions for us all.