Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
America is neither secular or theocratic
Monday, September 28, 2009 5:54 AM PDT
Is America a secular (godless) nation, a theocracy, or what?
When we forget to remember our history, others come up with secular or theocratic definitions of our nation, neither of which are true. Sometimes the memories of Americans need to be refreshed with accurate history. A good reminder is provided by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1892, which declared unanimously that this is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles.
That unanimous Supreme Court spent eight pages exhaustively discussing the overwhelming evidence that America was not only founded by Christians, but upon their Christian values. After referencing all 44 state constitutions (44 in 1892) and discussing several of them, that unanimous Court said the following on page 470:
"There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in 'Updegraph v. commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400,' it was decided that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; .... not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.'
And on page 471, that unanimous court concluded: " ... this is a Christian nation." Church of the holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892) supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html.
The wise founders of this great nation, and all Americans for its first 150 years, understood that this country and its government was neither secular nor theocratic, but that the Constitution struck a unique and God blessed "happy medium" founded upon "Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." Can I get an "amen" for every American reading this?
Audrey Boyd
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
anthropis wrote on Oct 1, 2009 11:57 AM:
Some activist judges have ignored the rule of law (or lack thereof) along with long standing tradition to make rouge rulings against Christian speech and acts.
There is no law (absolutely none) that give the courts jurisdiction to even hear said cases. The litigation ruled on thus far have really been frivolous in nature. "
Aimee wrote on Sep 29, 2009 12:10 PM:
Sam: I agree with a moment of silence although the courts have ruled that this still constitutes a violation to the Establishment Clause.
Anthropis: (like the name, by the way) Just living in today's society, I agree that Christianity is under attack, in subtle and not so subtle ways. I'm not sure about persecution, I'd like to read more about this, any specifics? "
Lodian wrote on Sep 29, 2009 10:35 AM:
jeff wrote on Sep 29, 2009 10:16 AM:
then go pray in one. no one is stopping you. in fact i'd encourage you to go to your church and pray. but our cc meetings or government buildings is not the time nor place. "
rantraves wrote on Sep 29, 2009 9:13 AM:
Brian wrote on Sep 29, 2009 8:15 AM:
" I hope those so inclined will join me tonight in praying that God motivates the Lodi City Council to keep its nose out of the affairs of the Church. "
-And those government guidelines that require a church to be built to a certain code? We wouldn't want the government to put it's nose in the affairs of the church. Heavens no. "
mike wrote on Sep 28, 2009 7:51 PM:
http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html "
Leonard wrote on Sep 28, 2009 6:26 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Sep 28, 2009 6:16 PM:
As an aside, Dan Brown's newest goes deep into the world of the Freemasons. A very entertaining and quick read. "
sam wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:59 PM:
Great comment. "
jeff wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:53 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:50 PM:
jeff wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:46 PM:
wtong again anthropis
'Although 14 U.S. Presidents have been Freemasons, the last President to be was Gerald Ford.' http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_president_george_w_bush_a_free_mason
http://www.calodges.org/no406/FAMASONS.HTM
http://bessel.org/presmas.htm "
sam wrote on Sep 28, 2009 3:54 PM:
"One thing of which there can be no doubt, people came to America in order to avoid being prosecuted by their respective governments for worshipping in a certain way. I do believe that the Founders intended that religious persecution be something that American did not engage in."
Why would the city council want to to make those who do not believe in Jesus Christ feel like "outsiders" ?
I respectfully think a moment of silence is perfect. I can pray to my Lord, while others are not made to feel uncomfortable at a government meeting. "
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 3:16 PM:
As for religious persecution, why is it that Christians are persecuted more and more today in the United States of America? "
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 3:11 PM:
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 3:05 PM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 28, 2009 2:55 PM:
One thing of which there can be no doubt, people came to America in order to avoid being prosecuted by their respective governments for worshipping in a certain way. I do believe that the Founders intended that religious persecution be something that American did not engage in.
Whether they themselves were Christian, that I am unsure of. "
Aimee wrote on Sep 28, 2009 2:48 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Sep 28, 2009 2:00 PM:
Throw around your opinion all you want, but facts are verifiable as true or false. You really need to know if a fact is true or not before you speak, because if it is untrue, then you are a liar.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:
"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 & State." "
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 1:53 PM:
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 1:51 PM:
that is a creation of the ACLU and activist judges. "
jeff wrote on Sep 28, 2009 1:16 PM:
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 1:08 PM:
Read a very good letter written in today's Sentinel by Audrey Boyd. "
davidd wrote on Sep 28, 2009 12:42 PM:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
Does it get any simpler than that? "
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 12:31 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Sep 28, 2009 12:07 PM:
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 11:56 AM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Sep 28, 2009 11:24 AM:
If you actually crack a history book, you'll find that the Founders were quite diverse in their religious views.
You will find Christian and Non-Christian, believer and non-believer.
Early congress absolutely disagreed on the point of religion, which is why they adopted the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause.
This is the greatest nation on earth, where you are free to associate as you wish and free to practice your religion or lack thereof, however you please.
The best, and only, way to create and preserve that freedom is to keep our government neutral on the point of religion. Even if our nation was 99.99% Christian, our government must NEVER be Christian, or any religion, lest we give up our TRUE freedom of religion. "
anthropis wrote on Sep 28, 2009 8:31 AM:
The federal courts err when they make rulings outside the scope of written and published law! That said, exactly what law is being violated to mention the name of Jesus Christ, sing Christian songs or display a nativity scene? There is no such law! "
Leonard wrote on Sep 28, 2009 7:22 AM:
Man the hate that drips from your posts is palatable. Texas must not be agreeing with your, or is it the crazy father in law? "
Wow, that is a reckless ad hominem shot in the dark. I don't believe I have ever mentioned my father in law on these blogs and I certainly know that I have never given you any reason to disparage him since no such reason exists.
In your family, it may be just fine for people to disrespect their in laws but I would appreciate it if you did not allow the effects of your low breeding to spread beyond the boundaries of your own sty. "
Leonard wrote on Sep 28, 2009 7:18 AM:
" Ah L - here we go. The court made one or two bad decisions, therefore everything they did is bad
No, Tommy, as usual, you miss the point entirely.
The core of this letter is based on the logical fallacy of the "Appeal to Authority", in this case, the SCOTUS.
I am merely pointing out the ways in which this fallacy contaminates the author's entire argument.
Surely, even you must be aware of the basics of formal logic. "
t jefferson wrote on Sep 28, 2009 6:17 AM:
I would figure with that whole living constitution thing you would have celebrated the Plessy decision, because it was made in the light of the political climate at the time. You are all for that...aren't you?
Man the hate that drips from your posts is palatable. Texas must not be agreeing with your, or is it the crazy father in law? "
Leonard wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:55 AM:
I like this statement because it is so obviously false. If all Americans agreed on this issue there would never have been a Supreme Court Case to decide it.
The question was just as controversial in the 1890s as it is today, the only difference was that back then the theocrats had a morally bankrupt court in their pocket. "
Leonard wrote on Sep 28, 2009 4:47 AM:
Some posters here (Brian?) might well respect a Court which ruled that African Americans could be stripped of their fundamental rights on the basis of their skin color but I think most decent people would take their utterances with a grain of salt. "
Comments on this story are now closed.