Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
I do not understand why the American Civil Liberties Union, by which their name implies the liberties of citizens, takes such an active stance against anything of Christian nature! Is it not my civil liberty to believe in Jesus Christ? The ACLU is making a mockery of the civil liberties of the American citizens of this country and getting paid by your taxs dollars to do it!
At any rate this cross was placed to remember fallen fellow soldiers and I believe it is nothing but pure disrespect to those who fought and those who perished for freedom to take it down! Please watch the video and sign the petiton! Please take a stand not for religions sake, but for what is the right and descent thing to do!
6 comments:
Monica thanks for posting this, ...how DARE some of these dim-witt organizations take it upon themselves to represent a handful of individuals with nothing better to do than find fault with anything they can to get attention. I think the American people should be asked to vote on certain issues and the MAJORITY decision should stand and just tough for the minority who doesn't like it. I'm sick of bending over backwards to please a handful of problem makers that if they don't get their way stomp their feet like the spoiled stupid brats they are!
Oh, I feel much better having said that! And I'll add this to my blog also!
Carol, I just think that is ridiculous, that after 75 years they want to take it down and what people need to realize is that right now it's memorials next it will be something else and if it doesn't stop here, it will never stop!
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others.
One often overlooked and sometimes complicated aspect of separation-of-church-and-state issues is the need to distinguish between government and individual speech. Under the First Amendment, individuals are free to express and practice their religious views publicly as well as privately. The government, though, is constrained under the First Amendment not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. When an individual acts in an official capacity on a government matter, he or she should conform to the First Amendment constraints on government. When an individual participates in an official event as an individual rather than as a government agent, he or she presumably has the freedom to express religious views. While figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity in any given circumstance can be complex, recognizing the distinction is critical.
Whether the display of a monument is considered individual speech by the person(s) donating the monument or government speech by the government accepting it for display on its land will be decided as a matter of fact in each case. I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to have much feel for how this analysis would play out here. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how the principles of separation of church and state should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
Hey Dougie, enjoyed your entertaining comment..and spoken like a true "modern day lawyer." Oh, by the way, I tried to leave you a comment on your blog but your page seems to be non accessible........ since 2007??!!!!
Hey Monica! We'll just keep on telling people what's going on. Goodness will ALWAYS override the bad...........
Post a Comment