Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (849122)	4/10/2015 8:32:52 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By Greg or e Respond to of 1572022

For decades after the Constitution was written, church services were held on Sundays in the Congress building with different denominations supplying the ministers on a rotation basis. Early Presidents like Jefferson attended these services every week. It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. loc.gov Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there. ...... even after churches began proliferating across the city, religious services still continued at the Capitol until well after the Civil War and Reconstruction. ........... The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: "Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol" 25 and "clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach." 26 In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday. ............. wallbuilders.com Early Presidents regularly declared national days of prayer and fasting beseeching citizens to attend their local houses of worship. Example: This is the text of a national day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer issued by President John Adams as printed in the Columbian Centinel, April 4, 1798. This proclamation was issued on March 23, 1798 declaring May 9, 1798 the day of fasting for the nation. ......... wallbuilders.com

To: combjelly who wrote (849122)	4/11/2015 2:08:57 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	2 Recommendations Recommended By Greg or e locogringo Respond to of 1572022

CJ, But what you are advocating, and have advocated, is allowing religion to over-rule the secular whenever an individual wants to. The converse of that argument is that the secular should rule over religion. That means forcing people to act against their beliefs because, you know, someone might be "offended" at their "discriminatory" beliefs. Still won't ask me whether I agree with businesses that refuse to serve gays? That's OK, it never really was about that, was it? Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (849122)	4/11/2015 3:12:00 AM
From: i-node	5 Recommendations Recommended By DayTraderKidd Greg or e locogringo Tenchusatsu TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572022

You are really ignorant of this subject. The question is whether government has the right to require something of soneone who has a religious opposition to it. And Supreme Court precedent is pretty clear. Government cannot subordinate your religious rights just because it wants to. It cannot deem your religious rights to be inferior to soneone else's, or to someone's lesser rights. Unless failure to do so creates a danger. The entire Left has essentially shown it has no understanding of the issue at all.