Posted 3 months, 22 days ago in 
6 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
It’s strange. Some 200 years after our Constitution was written, we debate whether the men who wrote it understood it. In the 1770s and 1780s, those who wrote the establishment clause engaged in prayer while writing it. The first official act of the Continental Congress was a call to prayer. The next day, Sept. 7, 1774, it opened with reading from the Psalter and Book of Common Prayer, followed by the extemporaneous prayer of an Anglican clergyman. Ben Franklin noted that this was not the exception, writing that the founders offered daily prayers throughout the conflict with Great Britain.
On April 15, 1775, a proclamation was issued for “A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation.” The federal government issued two such proclamations a year from 1776 – 1783, with state governments issuing them more frequently. Those who wrote the Constitution saw no conflict with our individual liberties and state-sponsored prayer. I wonder why we’re so touchy about it today.
In the 1960s, prayer suddenly became unacceptable in schools. The Sentinel recently ran an editorial followed by a letter dickering about 1980s judicial acts and whether an individual offering prayer is a paid clergyman rather than an elected official. Is a paid, professional, prayer more constitutional than a rank amateur prayer? Is it less offensive to atheists or more pleasing to God? The whole nitpick seems rather silly.
Neither God, prayer, atheism, nor the First Amendment have changed. Nonetheless, injudicious judicial opinions of the twentieth century conflict with the precedents of our founders. It is as if we suddenly learned something about God, prayer, atheism or the Constitution that had previously gone unnoticed. Daily governmental prayer for the guidance and protection of Divine Providence was acceptable to those who wrote the Constitution. Perhaps there is still room for it today.
MICHAEL COSTELLO
Grand Junction
28 Responses to “There is still room for prayer today”
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice try Michael, but no prayer for you today.
Now we must cater to the losers, whiners, and self proclaimed victims of the Valley.
In other words, the lowest common denominator gets to rule the house now.
Did I say lowest common denominator?
Sorry, I meant the lowest form of Whale manure on the bottom of the ocean.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Maybe I meant the sleaziest among us….
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have to wonder what exactly Michael Costello’s point here is, since the US Constitution was not ratified until 1788, well after the dates he mentioned. The government he refers to was not the federal government established by the Constitution, thus what ever they did has no bearing on current issues.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - Historically, you are absolutely correct. You must have been educated outside the Grand Valley.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
uh point of order fellers.
Mr. Costello is perfectly correct.
He speaks of those who wrote the Constitution, when they wrote it, and their daily activities.
He makes no mention of ‘ratification’, but the political and religious mores of that period in time.
I refer you to scotts proclamation of the ‘wall of separation’ which was never mentioned in any manner until substantially AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified.
What letters Tomas Jefferson may have written AFTER the fact, has no relevance to the Constitution, or it’s powers and limitations on those powers.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Over the years our country has a history of official exclusion. Voting and property ownership for women, slavery followed by countless laws excluding those of color, Jews in social situations, Catholics, Asians, Italians, Poles , the Irish. We’ve pretty much outgrown all those things. It didn’t happen accidently. Unpopular people fought for them.
The author mentions school prayer. That was banned because it seemed to always be that of Christian prayer, and often of a sectarian nature. Although some are still fighting that battle wiser heads realized more and more people–children–of different beliefs were left out. Some people are still saying “so what, they need to recognize what the majority wants”–supposedly.
Prayer of a specific sectarian nature is inappropriate in governmental meetings for the same reason. We are growing up as a nation and recognizing that it is foolish to leave anybody out. Majority rule is not applicable. Pointing out circumstance and practices in the past 200, 100 or even 50 years is meaningless. We’ve matured and corrected practices of exclusion for all of the things noted above that had no provable factual reasons for their existence. Pray eveywhere you choose, but it is not appropriate in gatherings to do the government’s—the peoples, all of them–business. There is no rational reason to maintain these practices other than to say “we’ve always done it this way” or “we’re the majority and we’ll determine whatever we want and you’ll just have to accept it”. Stop all the rationalizing and accept the fact that we are all different in countless ways, not the least of which is world view, including religious beliefs.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, He is using the practices of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the US Constitution. I’m willing to bet you don’t see the problem there.
And it’s funny how you use the Founding Fathers to support your view, but ignore the fact one of them, Thomas Jefferson, is the one who coined the phrase “Wall of Separation” to describe the effect that the First Amendment has. He was specifically referring to the First Amendment in that letter, so your objection is irrelevant.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now scott, you have proven how ignorant you truly are on issues concerning the Constitution, and history in general.
Have you ever actually read the letter scott?
Obviously not, or you would have an entirely different opinion of the issue.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, I have Willis. It doesn’t change the fact that he was referring to the First Amendment and describing the effect it has.
Can you tell us the problems with using the actions of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the US Constitution?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 5:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I seriously doubt it scott, but…
What was the date it was written?
And your question:
” Can you tell us the problems with using the actions of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the US Constitution? ”
What, pray tell, are you referring to?
Anything relevant to this discussion?
Or are you talking about another thread again?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 5:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
The relevant section from Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)
“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.”
You see where he says “should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? That refers to the First Amendment. Then he says “thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Ergo (that means therefore), Jefferson was quite clearly referring to the First Amendment when he used the phrase “wall of separation.”
It figures that you can’t tell the problem with using the actions of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the Constitution. And yes, it is relevant since it refers to the letter at the top of the thread.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
psssst. scottie?
go look in the forums section.
I already put it all out for everybody to read.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh good. Now everyone can see how wrong you are.
Thanks.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” It figures that you can’t tell the problem with using the actions of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the Constitution. And yes, it is relevant since it refers to the letter at the top of the thread. ”
As to this little piece of ignorance scott.
The letter writer was quite accurately speaking of the daily activities of those who wrote the Constitution.
His final paragraph accurately states that the only thing that has changed is now we are assaulted on a daily basis by retarded people with no knowledge of, or respect for what the Authors of the Constitution set forth on parchment.
To paraphrase Senator Phil Graham.
‘This has become a nation of whiners and crybabies.’ (scott included)
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, almost forgot. Are you going to explain what’s wrong with using the actions of the Continental Congress to justify actions under the Constitution or just ignore it since it blows your pet ideas out of the water?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We cross posted.
Yes, it describes their actions, but since the Constitution wasn’t written yet, you can’t justify those actions as being in compliance with the Constitution.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The letter writer was quite accurately speaking of the daily activities of those who wrote the Constitution.’
The Continental Congress is not an issue here scott.
Nor are any of the described activities an issue.
What are you trying to deflect attention away from on this subject?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Read the letter, Willis. It is an issue.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, I can copy the entire letter down here so you don’t have to scroll up to read it.
It’s NOT an issue.
What are you trying to distract me from with this particular bit of drivel?
The fact that so far you have stayed away from the non wall forum?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The first two paragraphs describe the actions of the Continental Congress. Since that was before the Constitution was written, their actions have no bearing on anything in the Constitution, contrary to what the letter writer says in the third and fourth paragraphs. This is rally quite simple, Willis. It is not a distraction, it is directly on point.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #5 scott.
” Mr. Costello is perfectly correct.
He speaks of those who wrote the Constitution, when they wrote it, and their daily activities.
He makes no mention of ‘ratification’, but the political and religious mores of that period in time.”
He is not ‘using’ the action of the Continental Congress for any thing scott.
from post #17 and before…
“The letter writer was quite accurately speaking of the daily activities of those who wrote the Constitution.’
Do have that serious of a comprehension problem scott, or are you really that poorly educated?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the fourth paragraph:
“Neither God, prayer, atheism, nor the First Amendment have changed.”
Now since you admit he does not mention ratification, why would he mention the First Amendment unless he was under the impression that the actions of the founders were acceptable under the Constitution? It doesn’t matter what they did before the Constitution was ratified, which is my point.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, God hasn’t changed.
Prayer hasn’t changed.
Atheism hasn’t changed.
The First Amendment hasn’t changed.
Exactly what in that little pea sized dust particle is your problem?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh class, you overbloated elitist snob.
You slandered a variety of well respected scientists in the Global warming forum, and you have yet to respond to the facts you requested.
Why is that?
Afraid to admit that you lied about those people in a failed effort to prove your failure as a man?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The letter writer explained very well the history of prayer in America, as well as the belated attempts at interpretation of what our forefathers intended, but there is a common sense approach as well as a historical approach to understanding the intent of our Founding Fathers as related to the prayer issue. One of the ways to understand what someones intentions are is to try to put yourself in their place. So imagine yourself in a position of leadership, and you have just decided to fire your boss (the King of England). You are in a state of rebellion against the most powerful nation in the world. That nation has a well trained, well armed standing army. Their navy is feared by every nation on earth. You have no allies. Your army consists of a few minutemen militias, who are required to supply their own weapons, powder and shot. Your artillery is non-existent. You have no food to feed those few militiamen. You have no navy what-so-ever. You are currently engaged in a war with the Native American population in both the US and from Canada. You don’t even have a flag. You have no money in your treasury, and you have just picked a fight with the biggest biker in the bar. Need I go further. Obviously prayer would not only be a welcome option. It is probably your only option. Now who could possibly believe, being in that position, anyone would not welcome divine intervention. Heck, I bet even an atheist would pray under those circumstances.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Obviously prayer would not only be a welcome option. It is probably your only option. Now who could possibly believe, being in that position, anyone would not welcome divine intervention. Heck, I bet even an atheist would pray under those circumstances.”
If you believe that AP, then you don’t know your American history.
James Madison was the principal author of the First Amendment and even more adamant about the separation of Church and State than Jefferson. Here is what Gary Wills has to say on the subject in his recent book on Madison, referring to his later actions as President:
“The Clergy of New england were discredited when they opposed the War of 1812 as “Godless”. Madison reflected modern values when he refused to institute the customary day of prayer and fasting during time of war. When Congress asked him to issue a Proclamation, her merely said that people could pray “if so disposed”. He would not have done even that he claimed except that he could not afford a fight with Congress at that point. For the same reason he did not try to abolish the chaplaincies of Congress and the military though he thought them unconstitutional. As it was, in telling people that they could pray if they wished, he returned to Washington’s precedent, which was non-denominational…” “The part of the Constitution that Madison was least likely to infringe was his favorite one, the separation of church and state. He exercised his veto three times to prevent state help to church buildings or supplies. In the veto of Feb. 21 1811, he refused to incorporate a church in the District of Columbia because that would be ‘a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency’”.
Thus Madison clearly intended a firm separation of church and state when he drafted the First Amendment as Gary Wills spells out so clearly. Even during the war of 1812, a dangerous time when the White House was burned, Madison did not resort to prayer.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh class, you overbloated elitist snob.
You slandered a variety of well respected scientists in the Global warming forum, and you have yet to respond to the facts you requested.
Why is that?
Afraid to admit that you lied about those people in a failed effort to make yourself appear intelligent?
You pompous ass classless.
You slander good honest people in your retarded tirade on global warming and in order to gain any credibility you are just going to have to break down and admit that you lied for purely political reasons.
Would you care to see how many times I can post this demand before you give up and apologize for your dishonest behavior?
Posted October 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys sure can ruin a good forum. Every time I look through there are the same people calling each other a variety of names and getting completely off topic. Lets raise the level of discourse here people.
One thing that was quoted earlier was Thomas Jefferson’s letter. I’ve never seen one paragraph in a private letter so overused and misused in political discources. I think that if Thomas Jefferson or any of the other framers were so adament about the separation, they may of actually put it in the constitution. What they did put in the constitution was the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion that we have gone to today. Even in the Danbury Baptist letter that was quoted from Jefferson the part were he states “or prohibiting the free exercise(of religion) thereof” is always ignored. I agree that the government shouldn’t sanction any particular religion but I also think that the government should not RESTRICT the exercise of religion.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.