mperdue said:
The Treaty of Tripoli signed and sealed on the 4th day of November, 1796
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
It looks like someone forgot to tell the founding fathers that they founded a Christian nation...
Mario
The Northwest Ordinance which was passed on July 13 1787 stated:
Section 14 ARTICLE III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Your "wall of sepration" On April 9, 1803, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, President Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning Jesus:
His system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers.
On December 3, 1803, it was recommended by President Thomas Jefferson that the Congress of the United States pass a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians. Included in this treaty was the annual support to a Catholic missionary priest of $100, to be paid out of the Federal treasury. Later in 1806 and 1807, two similar treaties were made with the Wyandotte and Cherokee tribes. The treaty provided:
And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.
On April 21, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence:
My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.
New York State Legislature (1838), stated:
In all countries, some kind of religion or other has existed in all ages. No people on the face of the globe are without a prevailing national religion....
With us it is wisely ordered that no one religion shall be established by law, but that all persons shall be left free in their choice and in their mode of worship. Still, this is a Christian nation. Ninety-nine hundredths, if not a larger proportion, of our whole population, believe in the general doctrines of the Christian religion. Our Government depends for its being on the virtue of the people, - on that virtue that has its foundation in the morality of the Christian religion; and that religion is the common and prevailing faith of the people.
United States Supreme Court (February 29, 1892), in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
In part for brevity:
No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because 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...."
...We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...because of a general recognition of this truth [that we are a Christian nation], the question has seldom been presented to the courts....
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people.
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.
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....we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.
The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality.
Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind.
New York Supreme Court (cited in 1905) by Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer in his lecture, entitled "The United States a Christian Nation," rendered its opinion in the case of Lindenmuller v. The People, 33 Barbour, 561, stating:
Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.
So mperdue I can cite thousands of documents that differ from that one which I assume was to appease the Muslims.
The Constitution of the State of New York, adopted 1846, stated:
Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Massachusetts Supreme Court (1838), heard the case of Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206, 216-217 1838, which involved a Universalist who claimed the right of "freedom of the press" as a defense for publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. The Court delivered its decision, stating that "freedom of press" was not a license to print without restraint, otherwise:
The statute, on which the question arises, is as follows:
"That if any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government, or final judging of the world," &....
In general, blasphemy [libel against God] may be described, as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity...to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God...to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due him....
It is a wilful and malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence of God by denying his existence, of his attributes as an intelligent creator, governor and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in him....
But another ground for arresting the judgement, and one apparently most relied on and urged by the defendant, is, that this statute itself is repugnant to the constitution...and therefore wholly void....
[This law] was passed very soon after the adoption of the constitution, and no doubt, many members of the convention which framed the constitution, were members of the legislature which passed this law....
n New Hampshire, the constitution of which State has a similar declaration of [religious] rights, the open denial of the being and existence of God or of the Supreme Being is prohibited by statute, and declared to be blasphemy.
In Vermont, with a similar declaration of rights, a statute was passed in 1797, by which it was enacted, that if any person shall publicly deny the being and existence of God or the Supreme Being, or shall contumeliously reproach his providence and government, he shall be deemed a disturber of the peace and tranquility of the State, and an offender against the good morals and manners of society, and shall be punishable by fine....
The State of Maine also, having adopted the same constitutional provision with that of Massachusetts, in her declaration of rights, in respect to religious freedom, immediately after the adoption of the constitution reenacted, the Massachusetts statue against blasphemy....
In New York the universal toleration of all religious professions and sentiments, is secured in the most ample manner. It is declared in the constitution...that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this State to all mankind....
Notwithstanding this constitutional declaration carrying the doctrine of unlimited toleration as far as the peace and safety of any community will allow, the courts have decided that blasphemy was a crime at common law and was not abrogated by the constitution [People v. Ruggles ].
[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well...as Christians of every denomination....This provision does not extend to atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
United States Congress (January 19, 1853), as part of a Congressional investigation, records the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country, and its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection, with the state, of a particular religious society, by its endowment at the public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of Church and State of which our ancestors were so justly jealous and against which they so wisely and carefully provided....
If Congress has passed, or should pass, any law which, fairly construed, has in any degree introduced, or should attempt to introduce, in favor of any church, or ecclesiastical association, or system of religious faith, all or any one of these obnoxious particulars, - endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, - such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion," and, therefore, in violation of the Constitution. But no law yet passed by Congress is justly liable to such an objection.... We have chaplains in the army and navy, and in Congress; but these are officers chosen with the freest and widest range of selection, - the law making no distinction whatever between any of the religions, Churches, or professions of faith known to the world. Of these, none by law is excluded, none has any priority of legal right. True, selections, in point of fact, are always made from some one of the denominations into which Christians are distributed; but that is not in consequence of any legal right or privilege, but by the voluntary choice of those who have the power of appointment.
This results from the fact that we are a Christian people, - from the fact that almost our entire population belongs to or sympathize with some one of the Christian denominations which compose the Christian world. And Christians will of course select, for the performance of religious services, one who professes the faith of Christ. This, however, it should be carefully noted, is not by virtue of provision, but voluntary choice. We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity, and have a reasonable respect for its ministers and religious solemnities?...
How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized and respected by all the departments of Government? In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;" it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the returns of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath. Why, then, do the petitioners exclaim against this invasion of their religious rights? Why do they not assert that a national Sabbath, no less than a national Church, is an establishment of religion?...The recognition of the Christian Sabbath is complete and perfect. The officers who receive salaries, or per-diem compensation, are discharged from duty on this day, because it is the Christian Sabbath, and yet suffer no loss or diminution of pay on that account....
They intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators or the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any national recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of
the Revolutionary Congress been conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the World, and an habitual reliance upon His protection of the righteous cause which they commended to His care.