Quote:
Originally posted by Phaenx
Say, Abraham Lincoln was a republican wasn't he? Does this mean you're going to start fighting for the side of good?
|
Let's not start getting overly sarcastic here please.
Besides, don't forget that the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln's day was actually quite liberal for the climate in which it was in.
Red,
Yes, those are some interesting pieces as well. I read each to be speaking of Christian denominations persecuting other Christian denominations - a primary reason people settled onto America.
Most applicable to that interpretation is the quote you provide which, at face value, seems most damning.
" The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
I see no reason to see this as a condemnation of religion itself but merely a condemnation of the religious persecution the first amendemnt was created to prevent - a state-sponsored religion.
Either way, you have one of 2 things - either you have a group of founding fathers who are appalled by Christians persecuting other Christians but, for the most part (note that, IIRC, Franklin and Jefferson were among the few founding fathers who were not Christian of some sort) believe in the general good of Christian teachings, or you have a group of founding fathers who are no less two-faced as the politicians today.
Either way, they are undeserving of being called geniuses in regard to their stance on religion and its relation to the state in the way people are doing it. Either they disagree with you or we have no idea WHAT they thought on the subject because of their contrary statements.
Personally, I find the former more likely, especially when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. First, there is no question as to the motives of Fisher Ames, and there is not a more reliable source to look to when trying to decipher the first amendment. And second, when interpreting the constitution, I find it much more erasonable to look to things they said
while they were drafting it than otherwise (see Benjamin Franklin's call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention).
We digress however, I simply wanted to point out that the founding fathers and the first amendment aren't exactly things to fall back on in this debate.
You are right about the future of same sex marriages however, and I think that's exactly how it ought to be. It is, in my opinion, the government's duty to reflect the social mores of its people, and when those mores change, the laws ought to as well.