What is the Christian Conservatives Problem with the term 'Holiday Tree'?

Here you go:

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

excerpt:



"Recent Misinformation on the Concept of Separation of Church and State

Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true.
Separation of church and state is not something the Supreme Court invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.
The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."
Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added) ​

The concept of the separation of church and state appears in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of an earlier statement where it also appears) adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power. (emphasis added). ​

Look at what Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, had to say about religious freedom in the 17th century. He was a Baptist persecuted for his faith who argued for the separation of church and state nearly a hundred fifty years before Jefferson.

The Church and State need not be, Williams insisted, inextricably linked: 'A Pagan or Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to carry the Ship to its desired Port, as any Christian Mariner or Pilot in the World, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed.' 'God requireth not an Uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any Civill State,' he declared. Rather, the tares in the field of Christian grain must be left alone; let man hold whatever religious opinions he chooses provided he does not 'actually disturb civil peace,' ran a provision of the Rhode Island Charter of 1663; let civil government be based on the consent of the governed. 'The Soveraigne, originall, and foundation of civil power lies in the People,' Williams insisted. They 'may erect and establish what forme of Government seemes to them most meete for their Civill condition.'
William's plea for Separation of Church and State stemmed far less, Harold Laski writes, from tender concern for men's consciences than from 'a fear that their unity meant the government of the Church by civil men and thus a threat to its purity.' Popular control of the Church through elected magistrates Williams thought evil since it gave the Church 'to Satan himself, by whom all peoples natural are guided.' The precise intention of Scripture could not be ascertained, he believed, with the icy certainty claimed by the New England clergy. He wanted Church and State separated so the Church would not be corrupted by the State. Thomas Jefferson entertained the opposite conviction, fearing that the State would become contaminated by the Church. (Alpheus Thomas Mason. Free Government in the Making: Readings in American Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 55) ​

In his tract on the topic of religious toleration Williams madesome important points:

...Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.
Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.
Sixthly. It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries: and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only, in soul matters, able to conquer: to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the word of God.
Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.
Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jews' conversion to Christ.
Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth, only can, according to God, procure a firm and lasting peace; good assurance being taken, according to the wisdom of the civil state, for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile... (Roger Williams. The Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience Discussed, 1644. excerpted from A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 64) ​

Notice what Ulysses S. Grant said in his seventh annual address (State of the Union address) to the Congress, December 7, 1875:

As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which may be legislated upon and settled at this session:
First. That the States shall be required to afford the opportunity of a good common-school education to every child within their limits.
Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.
Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres; and that all church property shall bear its own proportion of taxation (emphasis added). (A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1897, p. 4310) ​

Here is a quotation from the Encyclopedic Index of A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, published in 1917:

Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest inspiration from James Madison while he was in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was made to levy a tax upon the people of that state "for the support of teachers of the Christian religion." Madison wrote what he called a "Memorial and Remonstrance," in which he appealed to the people against the evil tendency of such a precedent, and which convinced people that Madison was right. A bill was passed providing "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever * * * nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and, by argument, maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." The religious test to which many of the states put their office-holders were gradually abandoned, and the final separation of church and state in America came in 1833, when Massachusetts discontinued the custom of paying preachers (emphasis added).(A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XX. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1917). ​

It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history.
If this is a "Christian" nation, then why did Jefferson write what he did to a group of Baptists? Shouldn't he instead of said that they had something to worry about? If the concept of separating church and state were a recent idea, then why did Jefferson himself use it, one of the founding fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence?
I think it is a big surprise to the Jewish people who have been living here for longer than my ancestors (who only got here in the middle of the 19th century) to think that this is a "Christian" nation. If it were "Christian" then there would be religious requirements to be a part of it and to participate in the public arena. If this were a Christian nation, then why are so few Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic Gallup pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S. population claims to be "born again". Interestingly, that's up considerably since the time of the nation's founding, when barely ten percent, if that, claimed intense religious affiliation.
I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the public school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have failed to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962 that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them over the intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure out how anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the state to compose prayers and force them on people.
So why would you want to "restore" government sponsored religiosity? Students and faculty and other employees are free to pray for themselves if they want; that has never been a problem (admittedly, some examples of overzealous administrators who didn't understand the issue, who tried to stop individuals from exercising their religious beliefs, can doubtless be found; but that is the exception, not the rule. That there are murderers is not proof that murder is legal.).
As a Baptist, I frankly would be bothered by a Moslem or a Hindu writing a prayer for my child. I no more want them imposing their religious views on me and mine than they would want me to impose my Baptist beliefs on them. And what about the agnostics and atheists? They no more wish to be inundated by religious concepts in school than I would like to have my children inundated by their beliefs (or lack thereof).
The attempt in the public arena is toward neutrality; certainly it is a tough ideal to reach, and certainly there are a lot of mistakes made on all sides. Certainly, too, in the past there has been a lot of inconsistency in these ideals. But the ideal remains nevertheless.
The history of the U.S. has been one of lofty ideals rarely achieved; our shame is that we so rarely reach what we proclaim: freedom, equality, and the like. But our pride is that, unlike so many before, at least we have ideals and we're trying, how often unsuccessfully, by fits and starts, to reach them. Most of the political disagreements between the parties is not so much over the goals (both Democrats and Republicans want a free, prosperous, safe and happy society), but over the methods to reach those goals. Demonizing the opposition is not reasonable, and both parties are guilty of this (Democrats tend to turn Republicans into Fascists and Republicans tend to turn Democrats into Communists; neither caricature is accurate, appropriate or dignified)."

 

non sequitur.

edit:

7 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

from washington's farewell.

The "big" founders were indeed deist. Everyone else? Christian.

 

Not so.

The Seperation of church and State is central to this issue.

A tree on State property is called whatever the State says it's called.

If christians want xmas trees let them put up xmas trees at their churches and homes.

Frankly, i think it a violation to call it a holy-day tree, but one thing at a time i suppose.

 

That surely doesn't contradict anything i've said.

Anyways, lunch time..bbl

 

Hahaha!

Washington wasn't a Christian.
He was a Deist and a Freemason.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Religious_beliefs


Religious beliefs

Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that he (like a number of Founding Fathers of the United States) was a Deist—believing in God but not believing in revelation or miracles. Before the Revolution, when the Episcopal Church was still the state religion in Virginia, he served as a vestryman (lay officer) for his local church. He spoke often of the value of prayer, righteousness, and seeking and offering thanks for the "blessings of Heaven". He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!" His adopted daughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, and several others have said, however, that he was, indeed, a Christian. Various prayers said to have been composed by him in his later life are highly edited. He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons at the request of his wife, Martha.

Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1775 he ordered that his troops not burn the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. In 1790 he wrote to Jewish leaders that he envisioned a country "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." This letter was seen by the Jewish community as highly significant; for the first time in millennia, Jews would enjoy full human and political rights.

 

remember when i said non sequitur?

what does the specific religion of our founders have to do with whether calling a christmas tree is a violation of church and state? Answer: it doesnt. You've lost the argument and have changed the thread to something else to cover it up.

How is it a violation of separation of church and state as long as ALL religions are allowed to decorate for their holidays? NO religion is established by congress. It is allowing ALL religions to practice.

 

That was your post correct?

I didn't realize that responding was considered cover-up.

 

and george washington being a deist relates how? Remember, he lived in 18th century America.

 

I think you have a misinterpretation of what that means.

It DOES mean that there can be no national religion.
It DOES mean that I can't be forced by the governemnt to participate any any religion.
It DOES mean that you are frre to practice any religion.
It DOES mean that the state can't favor any religion over another.

That DOES NOT mean that the State is free to exhalt RELIGION as long as it's many different religions.

All religions are allowed to be practiced within the United States Of America, NONE are allowed (are should be allowed anyway) to be practiced with the cooperation of or endorsment of the Government of the United States of America.

In other words:

Just because you add a menorrah(sp) along with the nativity scene doesn't exclude the fact that you are violating the sepration of church and state.

You're now violating it with several religions instead of just one.

 

Response to post #70

You brought up Washington, remember?

 

Agree

exalt religion? Jesus christ, its putting up decorations for a holiday! We're not talking about writing prayers on signs or putting up crosses every 5 inches. It is celebrating a HOLIDAY! Exalting a religion? Give me a break.

I completely disagree.

Congress is not establishing a religion. Citizens are practicing their right to practice their religion. Celebrating for a holiday is establishing a state religion? Puhleaze.

What an affront to religious freedom.

Stop trying to tread on like 98% of America's religious rights. We should be allowed to celebrate our religions on OUR land(public land is OUR land).

edit: as long as the state does not favor one religion over another than i dont see how congress is establishing a religion and not merely letting them practice their religions as they see fit.

So 2 questions again. How does George washington(OR ANY FOUNDER) being a deist relate to whether calling a christmas a tree is a violation of church and state.

and, how do decorations impose religion on you? Are you unable to walk by or maybe just appreciate them?



oh, also..why do you believe it is ok for the state to EXALT secular humanism by putting up a holiday tree?

 

But when the name of a tree offends conservative christians it's an issue?
You're all over the map...

No, citizens can pratice whatever they want.
The state can't practice a religious holiday.

Whose stopping you from practicing your religion?
We're discussing the state and religion.

Again, you brought up a quote from Washington and stated that not all the founding fathers were deist...

How does the name of the tree affect christians?
You're using double standards to say they have a right to be offended but others do not...

I don't, I've already stated that the state shouldn't celebrate any holy-day.
They should get rid of the damn tree and worry about government.
Leave Christmas and the like to their respective religions.
No one's stopping a church from putting up a tree or a synagoge(sp) from setting up a giant mennorah...


Please read my posts.

 

It is a christmas tree. You're changing the name of the tree from what it really is to something else.

If i renamed the "cherokee indians" to "dudes with tomahawks" that might piss em off.

the state isnt, the people who make up the state are. WE ARE THE STATE remember?

Those who want to banish christmas(and other religious symbols) from our land.

You brought up that they were deists! i said nonsequitur to that. You have CONTINUALLY ignored this. So how does the fact that some of our founding fathers were deists show that calling a christmas tree is a violation of church and state? What was YOUR point in showing that they were deists?

Because they aer taking a christmas tree and calling it something else. Thats why. Its not like they are putting up something different, say a lightbulb and demanding it be called the "Christmas Lightbulb." It is a CHRISTMAS tree!

Noted.

 

AGAIN: It's not their tree, the "borrowed" it. Just as they "borrowed" it, so can anyone else and name it anything else.

A religious symbol on public property and racial slurs are not remotely connected.

No.
Just as the Presidency is an office not a person.
When a government official in United States makes a decision it's within the office that he holds.
People make up the state
The STATE is not the People.
For instance: Just because an officeholder hates women doesn't give him the ability to discriminate based on gender.
So, what is your argument here?
That since some people are religious, the state should cater to them?

This as been addressed in previous posts, PLEASE READ THEM AS IT WE+ILL SAVE ME TIME AND EFFORT.

PLEASE READ THE THREAD.
Responded to your posts....

And....
This was already answered by me.
READ THE GODDAMN POSTS!!!
why am I going in circles!?!?!?

Private citizens who are christian have no say in what the state calls a tree promoting several different holidays (including non-religious), especially when it's not even a christian symbol to begin with.

 

why would christians even give a flying fuck about what it's called? it's not even a christian tradition, and no one is stopping them from having them in their own homes. WTF? who fucking cares. most of the fundamentalist types i know don't even have christmas trees.

 

it is a several hundred year old tradition. It is a christmas tree.

You completely missed the point. Renaming something is OFFENSIVE

That government is FOR the people. This is NOT what the people want. As that poll said, 64% said that christmas has become too politically correct. How is this a government FOR th epeople?

you most certainly did NOT. You have NOT shown or even attempted to show HOW the religion of the founders relates AT ALL.

saying this doesn't make you right! I can say the same damn thing.

We've been over this before. Every culture, language, religion borrows and adapts other traditions. Are we going to invalidate christianity and islam because judaism was first? English because it borrows from everything? American culture isnt American culture because it borrows from everything? Cultures/Religions/Languages ADAPT!

"The modern custom, however, cannot be shown to be descended from pagan tradition directly. Its origins can be traced to 16th century Germany: Ingeborg Weber-Keller (Marburg professor of European ethnology) identified as the earliest reference a Bremen guild chronicle of 1570 which reports how a small fir was decorated with apples, nuts, dates, pretzels and paper flowers, and erected in the guild-house, for the benefit of the guild members' children, who collected the dainties on Christmas day. Another early reference is from Basel, where the taylor apprentices carried around town a tree decorated with apples and cheese in 1597."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree

Now, PLEASE answer my question(or show me where you think you answered it) about the deism of the founders. I'm done wasting my time in the cat and mouse game of "i answered it!" "no you didnt!" "yes i did!"

 

You're reading a completely different thread than I am.

Read the POST!!!!

They weren't quoted for their deism, they were quoted on their stance on the seperation of church and state. Notice the QUOTES IN BOLD!!!

btw: since when does being in the majority have anything to do with anything? Do you really need a lecture on civil rights?

 

And...

A second ago you were saying it was all political correctness, now it's offensive?
Offensive to whom?
Conservative Christians?

Tell em to get over it.
They got over women getting the right to vote didn't they?
Since when do their feelings dictate public policy?

 

you completely changed the post with the url to include the excerpt and removed what you originally said.

"
The "big" founders were indeed deist. Everyone else? Christian."

That followup that i posted makes NO sense with the change.

Oh well, now i'm arguing against things that arent even there anymore..kinda makes no sense.