Bottom line here is that you have pushed this conversation away from Barton’s misrepresentation of the facts relating to the Kaskaskia Indians. Jefferson did not send missionaries to evangelize the Indians and then built them a church after they were converted.

You can argue your points about natural rights all day but it will not make Barton correct.

oft – we agree that there was no violation of church and state by Jefferson’s actions. However, we think it was ok for different reasons. I see no problem with it because the Kaskaskias were not citizens subject to the First Amendment and Jefferson was making a deal. Why you think it was ok, I am not sure. Your answer to Ken will help me figure that out.

You are correct that Jefferson did not believe personally in meddling in the religious affairs of other nations. Just as he did not attempt to tell the Kaskaskias what religion to believe in. Jefferson was not a fan of Catholicism as I am sure you know. If he would have sent missionaries to the Kaskaskia, no doubt he would have sent Unitarian ministers. You know he hoped they would come to Virginia. However, Jefferson recognized what the sovereign Kaskaskias wanted – which was a way to pay their priest and worship as Catholics – and he gave it to them as a part of the trade. Nothing more, nothing less.

November 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm

“You need written proof the framers denied unalienable rights to non citizens, otherwise Natural Law rules.”

No, because I, nor anyone else here, made any claims about the framers “denying unalienable rights” to anyone. that was YOU who brought that up when you were twisting the arguments others here have given. What Warren originally said was that Barton mis-represented what Jefferson was doing (and thereby Jefferson’s opinion on the separation of church and state) in the Kaskaskia treaty.

Further, Madison opinion is relevant (regardless of whether he was retired or not) because Doug was arguing the Rehnquist was wrong about Madison’s views on religion (and the 1st amendment).

the rest of your post didn’t make any sense to me.

The burden of proof is still on your side. You need written proof the framers denied unalienable rights to non citizens, otherwise Natural Law rules. In that sense a retired founding President’s opinion is irrelevant IF he no longer represents the people. Roe is unconstitutional; murdering babies was a felony penalized by prison and fine. Everson is also unconstitutional; religion is left to the States. Lawrence decision; the Founding Fathers punished with execution, hard labor, and castration.