In 1800, after D. C. became the capital Congress made the Capitol building and the Treasury Building available for Christian worship services on Sundays, a role both buildings played through the Civil War. By1867, the church in the Capitol was the largest Protestant church in America.

 

John Quincy Adams, made references to these services in his journals.

 

Religious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803.

 

Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803.

 

Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, a U. S. Congressman (and a chaplain in the Revolution as well as being a physician and scientist) also recorded in 1804:

 

December 23, Sunday. Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. [James] Laurie [pastor of the Presbyterian Church] alone [preached]. Sacrament [communion]. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours. Cold day.

 

Is anyone suggesting that the ACLU, known for stripping manger scenes at Christmas and pulling down the Ten Commandments posted in public court houses would not go absolutely bonkers if public buildings were used for Christian church services today?

 

Either the Founding Fathers had a different idea of the role of religion (and specifically Christian religion) in America… or the ACLU knows more about the intent of the Constitution than the guys who wrote it.

 

For the record, I don't think we're smarter or more nuanced about this than our Founders were.

You could have been the judge as you are making the HUGE jump that a moment of silence was a required school-led prayer.

 

That is NOT waht this was.

 

And BTW, Jesus had public prayers too.

 

John 17

Jesus Prays for Himself

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus Prays for His Disciples

6"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

 

First let me state that like you, I see no problem with the moment of silence. (Or the moment of "shut up" as a teacher friend calls it. )

 

As to the above text, I'm not sure that John 15 is a Public Prayer. It is a prayer for many and on many levels but it is a prayer that is spoken aloud during a gathering of disciples for the purpose of religious instruction. It is not a prayer that Jesus offers while in the temple on on the public square.

If you’re personalizing this as an assumption on my part that you’re a product of public schools, or that I’m somehow insulting others who like myself are products of public schools you’re way off base. That’s why I included “also” in the statement. It is a separate but parallel issue for me. I make no unfounded assumption here regarding you.

 

This is another separate but factual statement that could be backed up with enough evidence to fill several books. It has nothing directly to do with you (unless possibly you’re 70 years old and benefitted from a public school education prior to the 1960’s.) Either way, I did not link you personally in any way to this statement.

 

You certainly did, and it wasn’t the first time I’ve endured a complaint about the failings of the education system when disagreeing with you. I remember precious little from the American History class my junior year of high school, as it were.

 

How could you possibly be offended by this statement?

 

Well, I’m not a child.

 

To elevate it to the level of “the most insulting thing you’ve ever read” is a genuine head scratcher for me.

 

The idea that I’m basing my argument off what I’ve “been fed” is very insulting. You may as well have called me a mindless automaton, but then you wouldn’t be able to worm around it. In fact, based on my surprise upon reading many of the primary sources years ago (out of my own curiosity and interest), if I were “fed” anything it would resemble your argument in this thread.

 

Again, if that’s an insult to you, so be it. IMO it’s a stretch, and certainly not how I intended to communicate with you.

 

I would give you the benefit of the doubt if this were the first time. However, when faced with disagreement - and I disagree with you a lot - your knee-jerk assumption is that your interlocutor is a fool. Tossing in a few smarmy compliments doesn’t exempt it. When there is such a degree of gray area and dissent among the Founders (indeed they compromised) assuming unanimity to claim a debater is mindless is further off-putting.

 

As for the discussion at hand, I've posted enough from Madison to indicate his interpretation of religious liberty and establishment. If someone wants to argue that he contradicted himself, that is fine, but I await evidence. In the meantime, here is the text of the Virginia Act For Establishing Religous Freedom of 1786, authored by Thomas Jefferson and alluded to by James Madison above.

 

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

 

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, 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 or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

 

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

LBBC - does your school have a moment of silence? If so, how is it presented?

You certainly did, and it wasn’t the first time I’ve endured a complaint about the failings of the education system when disagreeing with you. I remember precious little from the American History class my junior year of high school, as it were.

Did not… :lol:

 

Why are you so defensive about the adequacy of our current education system and specifically the content of our public school textbooks?

 

Well, I’m not a child.

Okay… :thumb:

 

The idea that I’m basing my argument off what I’ve “been fed” is very insulting .

Okay… I’ll agree to substitute “fed” with “taught” or “learned” which is precisely how I meant it but was too linguistically clumsy to word it that way originally. Are you telling me you are not basing your opinion on what you’ve been taught or upon what you’ve learned?

 

I simply questioned the sources of your information, not your ability to comprehend what is before you. You can take that personally if you choose. That is certainly not how I intended it.

 

You may as well have called me a mindless automaton, but then you wouldn’t be able to worm around it.

I don’t “worm” around anything… :lol: If I had intended to insult you, I would have done so and left no possible room for doubt. :thumb:

In fact, based on my surprise upon reading many of the primary sources years ago (out of my own curiosity and interest), if I were “fed” anything it would resemble your argument in this thread.

Wow… talk about worming around… so the same viewpoint that would have amounted in me calling you a “mindless automaton” is essentially your view of the process by which I formed my opinion on the matter, rendering me “a mindless automaton” by default. :lol:

 

I guess I could be offended too if I took any your comments that seriously… :lol:

 

I would give you the benefit of the doubt if this were the first time. However, when faced with disagreement - and I disagree with you a lot - your knee-jerk assumption is that your interlocutor is a fool.

Again, I say Wow!

 

I don’t know where you get that. I can assure you that if I thought you were a fool, this dialogue would not be occurring. I would simply ignore you as I do certain other posters on this board.

 

Tossing in a few smarmy compliments doesn’t exempt it. When there is such a degree of gray area and dissent among the Founders (indeed they compromised) assuming unanimity to claim a debater is mindless is further off-putting.

I don’t do smarmy. If I offered a compliment, it was sincere. I do not assume unanimity among the Founders. I do however; assert a preponderance of opinion. It may be gray as you suggest, but I submit it is a much lighter shade than you might be comfortable with.

 

As for the discussion at hand, I've posted enough from Madison to indicate his interpretation of religious liberty and establishment. If someone wants to argue that he contradicted himself, that is fine, but I await evidence. In the meantime, here is the text of the Virginia Act For Establishing Religous Freedom of 1786, authored by Thomas Jefferson and alluded to by James Madison above.

The entire statement here by Jefferson is a religious statement of such incredible faith in God, that I cannot imagine our current government allowing a similar document to become official today. We can dig into this later.

LBBC - does your school have a moment of silence? If so, how is it presented?

 

I pray for moments of silence.

 

I teach at an alternative school setting. Not sure what happens at the high school. We do not.

I can get a moment of silence in my classroom at ANY time I want. :lol:

On a light hearted note, I ask for a moment of silence in my classroom when a team I hate gets slaughtered, I call it off after a moment however! :lol:

 

I have no problem with teacher calling for a moment of silence in light of any tradgedy however. Asking the students to pray is a whole different ballgame however. This doesnt have anything to do with my religious beliefs, only the seperation of church and state.

I must admit that I'm out of my element here; but am finding the debate to be very interesting.

 

Except for the "did too, did not" stuff.

 

Almost wants me want to go audit a history class. Almost.

The entire statement here by Jefferson is a religious statement of such incredible faith in God, that I cannot imagine our current government allowing a similar document to become official today. We can dig into this later.

 

I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith.

I personally couldn't imagine a Christian in government today lauding natural rights as from God and including liberty and the capacity to reason as part of the faith.

That is precisely where our nation and more specifically contemporary Christians in America have dropped the ball IMO.

 

That is also one of the primary reasons you and I butt heads so often on here. What you see as improbable, backward or even ignorant, I view as sound reasoning based upon both evidence and faith.

 

Our worldviews are quite different... yours being more contemporary, mine being more traditional.

 

I personally do not think much of the change we have initiated has been for the better.

 

I welcome your disagreement.

I personally couldn't imagine ....... and the capacity to reason as part of the faith.

Could you explain this further?

Could you explain this further?

 

Which part?

Which part?

The part that I bolded, relating to "faith" and "the capacity to reason". What are you saying that you "can't imagine"?

The part that I bolded, relating to "faith" and "the capacity to reason". What are you saying that you "can't imagine"?

 

Well, I should first say that I believe that humans were deliberately given the ability to use logic and reason to sort out and understand the myriad problems and unique questions encountered in life. It is why I understand the Bible not as an exhaustive list of do’s and don’ts but a broader explanation to which humans are given the equipment to adapt to those specific problems and questions mentioned earlier. As far as the “can’t imagine” part, it was a commentary on my observations of political Christians who invoke the religion, for instance, as a justification for American exceptionalism at the expense of natural rights or equity. I wouldn’t expect many modern Christians, specifically evangelicals, to agree with Jefferson’s writing above. And that isn’t to say I find anything wrong with evangelicals.