Although the idea of a "wall of separation" originated with Roger Williams and not Thomas Jefferson, it is Jefferson's phrasing which has been most used by judges, lawyers and politicians when it comes to interpreting the First Amendment. This is unsurprising because of Jefferson's role in the development of our nation and our political system.
The phrase itself stems from a letter which Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut. Jefferson was president at the time and the Danbury Baptist Association had written to him on October 7, 1801, expressing their concern about their religious freedoms. At the time, they were being persecuted because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. Jefferson responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that:
...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...
This is exactly what the Danbury Baptists wanted for themselves - an end to repression on account of their religious beliefs. It is also what is accomplished when religious beliefs are not promoted or supported by the government. If anything, his letter could be viewed as a mild expression of his views, because an FBI analysis of portions scratched out from the original draft show that Jefferson had originally written about a "wall of eternal separation" [emphasis added].
The religious right voters were once considered yellow-dog democrats of the South, see Zell Miller. These democrats are now your new "moral voter" republican representatives and senators.
"There goes the South for a generation," Lyndon Johnson is said to have predicted as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. Actually, it's been two generations, but otherwise Johnson was dead-on.
The religious right is now poised to demand their due. Their demands of 2000 were displaced due to 9/11. Rove called and they answered, they will not be placated these next four years.
From the NYT:
Bob Jones III, president of the fundamentalist college of the same name, has written a letter to the president telling him that "Christ has allowed you to be his servant" so he could "leave an imprint for righteousness," by appointing conservative judges and approving legislation "defined by biblical norm."
"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," Mr. Jones wrote. "Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."
Welcome to the forum, mackie.
That is about what one would expect Bob Jones and other Evangelical ministers to believe and say.
But their conservative voices are balanced by the ministers of the Left such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .
And so it goes in our ideologically divided Republic.
Thanks for the welcome, Larry.
Quote:But their conservative voices are balanced by the ministers of the Left such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .
They do strike a balance however the distinction is Sharpton and Jackson did not deliver the winning margins for a victory in both houses of congress and the White House. Therein lies the tale.
Since we agree that the voices of Sharpton and Jackson were silenced by the voices of Bob Jones and his followers, Larry, why would you not agree that Bob Jones expects to reap what he sowed?
Larry434 wrote:mackie wrote:Thanks for the welcome, Larry.
Quote:But their conservative voices are balanced by the ministers of the Left such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton .
They do strike a balance however the distinction is Sharpton and Jackson did not deliver the winning margins for a victory in both houses of congress and the White House. Therein lies the tale.
No they did not. The Nanny government ideology they preached, as well as the campaign agenda of the Dems, was again rejected by the majority of citizens.
And how many voters in the exit polls stated their reasons for voting Republican that they were rejecting a nanny state ideology preached by the Democrats? We all know this election had very little to do with that. We also know that the Democrats were not preaching 'nanny government ideology'.
And how many voters in the exit polls stated their reasons for voting Republican that they were rejecting a nanny state ideology preached by the Democrats? We all know this election had very little to do with that. We also know that the Democrats were not preaching 'nanny government ideology'
You just keep telling yourself that, duck. Repeat the same message, whatever you choose to call it, and be prepared to accept the result.
And you go on reading, well, whatever you want, into the election results while maintaining the impenetrable attitude of smug superiority, Larry.
It'll be status quo around here for some time yet.
Cycloptichorn
Larry434 wrote:And how many voters in the exit polls stated their reasons for voting Republican that they were rejecting a nanny state ideology preached by the Democrats? We all know this election had very little to do with that. We also know that the Democrats were not preaching 'nanny government ideology'
You just keep telling yourself that, duck. Repeat the same message, whatever you choose to call it, and be prepared to accept the result.
Cyclop already said it better than I could Larry. But you and your cohorts are the ones who keep repeating the mantra that this election was somehow a referendum on Democratic party ideals, when the whole world knows that this was a referendum on changing horses in the middle of a race.
And I say this not being someone who is any big defender of the party's ideals, but as someone who was forced to the left in this election due to the careening to the right of the other party, and the lack of any other conscionable alternative.
And I say this not being someone who is any big defender of the party's ideals, but as someone who was forced to the left in this election due to the careening to the right of the other party, and the lack of any other conscionable alternative.
A lot of us in the center and on the right did the same, seeing tthe control of the Dems being seized by the radical Left...as did a Senator of their own party, Zell Miller.
Zell Miller is a Republican in Democrats clothing. I don't think there is anyone who takes his switch hitting as a legitimate sign of anything.
Only if by 'the Dem message' you mean the message that Bush needs to go.
Larry434 wrote:And how many voters in the exit polls stated their reasons for voting Republican that they were rejecting a nanny state ideology preached by the Democrats? We all know this election had very little to do with that. We also know that the Democrats were not preaching 'nanny government ideology'
You just keep telling yourself that, duck. Repeat the same message, whatever you choose to call it, and be prepared to accept the result.
We do know though that the Republicans were preaching " the rapture government ideology". That is why Bob Jones is making his demands known early so the administration and the voters will not forget who brought the Republicans to the dance.
Sadly, we left behinders have accepted the results but before you celebrate too loudly, Larry, the words of Martin Niemoeller are worth remembering.
I don't think that's what we were talking about, Larry.
