I edited my original post. I originally quoted the wrong passage. Sorry. See below for the right passage.
Last edited:
I Thessalonians 5:16-18
- Thread starter reswat
- Start date
On the warm-up shirts or the jerseys? I didn't get to watch the game, but I saw that the team was wearing warm-ups with 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18.
"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."
Either way, still pretty cool.
"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."
Either way, still pretty cool.
I thought it was classy of the hawkeyes to fully participate. Kudos to fran and team and all hawkeye fans.
I love this!!!
This is my wife and I's favorite/special verse - we even have it framed and on our wall in our living room! I have to get one of these shirts!
This is my wife and I's favorite/special verse - we even have it framed and on our wall in our living room! I have to get one of these shirts!
I love everything about this and that Iowa was so classy in participating in this celebration. Love all of it!
I loved it too. Although I was a bit surprised to see a public school with it on their jerseys - and I’m an Elder in my church. Maybe I’m just jaded living on the east coast.
It takes guts to stand up for what are. Proud of everyone that has the courage to believe in what they believe regardless of what public opinion is.
His faith was such a big part of who Tyler was - and is.
My wife felt this way at my niece’s graduation in mid-2000s small town Indiana. She’s an educator, and was surprised by the open praying and religious backdrop. At that same school, a couple decades before, we openly said the Lord’s prayer before games. It still happens in many communities across the country. It happens until it is challenged. The challenge is based on a concept that isn’t completely grounded in our Constitution. It was incorporated by our Court in the way other things are through time and practice. Its underpinnings are based mostly on a concept that emanated mostly from one founder - who didn’t actively participate in the drafting of the Constitution.
Not establishing a new Anglican church is very different than mandating that no public function can stand with any religious bent. Thomas Jefferson also felt that no generation should be saddled with the previous generation’s debts. His solution: reorganize the government every 22 years. That would be chaotic. He was a bit a maniacal thinker at times. I’m fine with a general principle of not forcing religion on people. Some people want it, and ought to be able to proudly share it. If a person feels marginalized by that, it’s unfortunate.
I thought of this Facebook post while reading this thread.
Blame Hugo Black for the misunderstanding of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury church!
Not sure I can blame Jefferson. I think Hugo Black's interpretation is what is in error
Jefferson was an impressive thinker. Hugo and his pahtnah in many opinions, Harry Douglas, were also impressive thinkers. Reasonable minds can differ. The narrative about a clearly defined separation of church and state emanating from our founding document is like the penumbra of a star. I can’t define it, and I don’t know if I’ll know it when I see it.
Well, we do know you wont see it in text.Jefferson was an impressive thinker. Hugo and his pahtnah in many opinions, Harry Douglas, were also impressive thinkers. Reasonable minds can differ. The narrative about a clearly defined separation of church and state emanating from our founding document is like the penumbra of a star. I can’t define it, and I don’t know if I’ll know it when I see it.
I’m 2/3 of the way through Hamilton right now and I don’t have an impressive view of Jefferson or Madison.Jefferson was an impressive thinker. Hugo and his pahtnah in many opinions, Harry Douglas, were also impressive thinkers. Reasonable minds can differ. The narrative about a clearly defined separation of church and state emanating from our founding document is like the penumbra of a star. I can’t define it, and I don’t know if I’ll know it when I see it.
I'm envious. There is so much to learn historically and I still have a few books in front of me. 600 pages in should give you a good feel. Is it reasonably smooth reading without some previous background or do you need a lot of background due to various references to other events etc.
I never had time before to type...and ADMIT I very easily could be wrong in what I think Jefferson's intent was which as you say...reasonable people can disagree. I offer my thoughts not for further understanding, but merely how I got my lean...which I understand other opinions exist...Jefferson was an impressive thinker. Hugo and his pahtnah in many opinions, Harry Douglas, were also impressive thinkers. Reasonable minds can differ. The narrative about a clearly defined separation of church and state emanating from our founding document is like the penumbra of a star. I can’t define it, and I don’t know if I’ll know it when I see it.
As a qualifier I definitely admit I'm no historian and there are many much more informed than me. That said...what makes me believe that Hugo's opinion was in error, besides the reach that there is no hint of such in the constitution was the environment prior to Jefferson and during his time. Jefferson loved the French. France was almost totally Catholic. No doubt he had Catholic friends and yet was supportive of the revolution...and one of those causes was too much power in the Church. I believe that he did not want one church being so powerful and think his Declaration of Independence was but another example of the individual having rights. He was concerned about a "form of government" and yet mentions that all the rights he speaks of as endowed by a creator telling me that he believed in God in some sense. (I'm fully aware his personal bible was in four languages and was void of the miracles...I have a copy somewhere in the house.
I have to believe this well-read man was also aware of Henry VIII changing from Catholic once he learned of Protestantism's acceptance of divorce so he could get another wife that might give him a son. (That was the reader's digest version) England who Jefferson despised as a result of Henry VIII and his heirs would alter between Protestantism and Catholicism declaring his country to have a national church! It is my belief (and I admit I'm not a historian) that Jefferson with the French influence (and support for the revolution), the freedom of the individual endowed by a creator and his despise of England that he did not want the USA to declare a national church whether Catholic or Protestant as he saw problems previously in England and France.
Jeffersons’ words " 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, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.;"
in my opinion is entirely different than preventing any element construed as a religious symbol as he was no doubt aware of and influenced by what went on in England years before and his support for the French Revolution as well. Obviously I could be wrong not having all the history to put in perspective differently than what I consider reasonable assumptions based on the limited understanding I have…I just believe he did not want a mandated church.
Where is Antonio Scalia and his textualism when needed?
I never had time before to type...and ADMIT I very easily could be wrong in what I think Jefferson's intent was which as you say...reasonable people can disagree. I offer my thoughts not for further understanding, but merely how I got my lean...which I understand other opinions exist...
As a qualifier I definitely admit I'm no historian and there are many much more informed than me. That said...what makes me believe that Hugo's opinion was in error, besides the reach that there is no hint of such in the constitution was the environment prior to Jefferson and during his time. Jefferson loved the French. France was almost totally Catholic. No doubt he had Catholic friends and yet was supportive of the revolution...and one of those causes was too much power in the Church. I believe that he did not want one church being so powerful and think his Declaration of Independence was but another example of the individual having rights. He was concerned about a "form of government" and yet mentions that all the rights he speaks of as endowed by a creator telling me that he believed in God in some sense. (I'm fully aware his personal bible was in four languages and was void of the miracles...I have a copy somewhere in the house.
It is my belief (and I admit I'm not a historian) that Jefferson with the French influence (and support for the revolution), the freedom of the individual endowed by a creator and his despise of England that he did not want the USA to declare a national church whether Catholic or Protestant as he saw problems previously in England and France.
Jeffersons’ words " 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, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.;"
in my opinion is entirely different than preventing any element construed as a religious symbol as he was no doubt aware of and influenced by what went on in England years before and his support for the French Revolution as well. Obviously I could be wrong not having all the history to put in perspective differently than what I consider reasonable assumptions based on the limited understanding I have…I just believe he did not want a mandated church.
Where is Antonio Scalia and his textualism when needed?
I don’t lean too much either way. I, like you, simply can’t abide by a narrative that describes something that isn’t there as if it always has been. My attempt in the last sentence was to borrow words from two landmark decisions: Griswold and Jacobelis - dealing with the right to privacy and community standards. “Emanations from the penumbra,” and “I know it when I see it.” Judges try to tack to the text and common law, but go adrift sometimes. Jon Teaford taught me well to be able to see both sides.
I know I've seen referenced the "penumbra" before and have to look it up. Vague enough it could be anything. Anyway, I may be entirely wrong but just wanted to share the thoughts that caused my reasoning. Appreciate your knowledge in this...
Wish I could like this post a million times due merely to Jon Teaford's name appearing on this board. Teaford -- what a great professor!
To tie it very loosely to sports. One Saturday after a football game, my wife and I were walking by Garcia’s. Professor Teaford stopped us and asked about how I was doing. He then proceeded to tell my wife what a crappy paper I wrote on Hugo Black (coincidentally), but that I made up for it with a good one about the Cherokee Cases. It was at least a couple years after graduation. She had been to a lecture with me just to watch the show. The thing is . . . both those lectures for Con Hist were at least a hundred+ students. I was mediocre at best and sat halfway back nursing a hangover most of the time. He was simply brilliant and caring enough to remember me. I still am touched by it 20+ years later.
neat...and all I got 20 years later prior to a ND football game in the student union "billiards room" was when I walked up to find out the cost for the balls per hour and recognized that guy behind the counter and him saying he remember me shooting pool in there to the astonishment of the guy with me.
I think it is neat that you had a teacher that left a lasting impression. Just moments ago I was talking to an engineer and somehow the subject about glass came up and I made a comment that when I was in school glass was considered a liquid...a very...very slow moving liquid and today it is an amorphous solid...thermal class a long time ago...
What a great anecdote that really captures his sense of humor, his amazing recall, and genuine care for students.
the door was opened when the "separation of church" comment was made, but stayed within Jefferson's letter. Many of the signers were Deists as you know. Better yet, how did the thread not end up about coaching in some manner?
ha, well questioned ... *sigh* ... I am close to done here. I actually googled how to create a forum ...
I enjoy a perspective from one that coached, played and worked with athletes at Purdue and if you listen real close as the wind blows I can hear a whisper
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Purdue recruiting Jacobsen to compete for U18 US Men’s National Team spot
- Latest: DubJellison
-
Jacobsen to compete for spot on U18 USA National team
- Latest: DubJellison
