I am amused to see a guy ? John Van Huizum ? mention his two-decades of writing articles, and then, follow this resume reference with this:
I think that when you put God on a U.S. issued coin or banknote, you obviously ignore what should be a separation of church and state, as many of our founders intended.
Please, besides writing crap for two decades backed by nothing more than opinion, tell me what the Founders thought of ?separation of church and state? John. Tell me what books you have read to come to such a conclusion, please. And I imagine you would have read a few from each viewpoint to come to such a FIRM conclusion, like: ?you OBVIOUSLY ignore what should be a separation of church and state, as many of our founders intended? (emphasis added). In a paper I did on this topic, I note that the same persons that wrote and ratified the 1st Amendment, did something that according to John they shouldn?t have done if how he views the topic is true. For instance, as soon as they finished with Constitutional issues (its creation and passage), they immediately went to their prospective states and wrote their state constitution. Here are some excerpts from them:
State Constitutions
On the day the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they underwent an immediate transformation.? The day before, each of them had been a British citizen, living in a British colony, with thirteen crown-appointed British state governments.? However, when they signed that document and separated from Great Britain, they lost all of their State governments.
Consequently, they returned home from Philadelphia to their own States and began to create new State constitutions.? Samuel Adams and John Adams helped write the Massachusetts constitution; Benjamin Rush and James Wilson helped write Pennsylvania?s constitution; George Read and Thomas McKean helped write Delaware?s constitution; the same is true in other States as well.? The Supreme Court in Church of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) pointed to these State constitutions as precedents to demonstrate the Founders? intent.?
Notice, for example, what Thomas McKean and George Read placed in the Delaware constitution:
?Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust? shall? make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: ?I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forever more, and I acknowledge the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.??
Take note of some other State constitutions.? The Pennsylvania constitution authored by Benjamin Rush and James Wilson declared:
?And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ?I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarded of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.??
The Massachusetts constitution, authored by Samuel Adams ? the Father of the American Revolution ? and John Adams, stated:
??All persons elected must make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. ?I do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasions of its truth.??
North Carolina?s constitution required that:
?No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the [Christian] religion, or the Divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit in the civil department, within this State.?
You had to apply God?s principles to public service, otherwise you were not allowed to be a part of the civil government.? In 1892, the Supreme Court (Church of Holy Trinity v. United States) pointed out that of the forty-four States that were then in the Union, each had some type of God-centered declaration in its constitution.? Not just any God, or a general God, say a ?higher power,? but thee Christian God as understood in the Judeo-Christian principles and Scriptures.? This same Supreme Court was driven to explain the following:
?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?.? These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people?.? 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.?
?read more?
In other words, for two decades John has been writing hearsay and not doing the hard work a knowing what the ?F? he is talking about. Unfortunately, due to time, I am not able to critique other issues in this short article I found wanting. That being said, I am sure the reader gets the point from this single critique (as well as my previous) that John is your typical secular liberal. I think I agree with Milton Berle?s assessment of John (*wink*), ?with him, ignorance is a religion.?
Tags: 1st Amendment, Benjamin Rush, Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, Concepts, George Read, James Wilson, John Adams, John Van Huizum, Milton Berle, Samuel Adams, Supreme Court, Thomas McKean, US History
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন