Regarding is "Under God" constitutional ...
M. Clark
First Amendment by making this Law. Although most Christians may not
see it this way, in my opinion just to keep peace in the "family" there
are certain religious-based words that shouldn't appear in any bill that
Congress sends to the President for his signature.
However, the First Amendment freedom of speech gives people the right to
recite whatever version of the Pledge of Allegiance they want to
regardless if Congress was wrong to add "under God". So while the
courts can properly order schools not to force students to recite the
"under God" version of the pledge, the courts are wrong to silence
either version of the pledge if they are voluntarily recited.
What a mess!
Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
judges to justice.
M. Clark
Ike Milligan
"M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1fypd2i.207k5xy99rwfN%idont...@toemail.com...
children ae forced to make choices about religion which is not the same as
adults having the right to choose whehter to recite certain words. The
parents are forced by law to have their children educated, whther or not
they can afford to send them to a private schookl or the leisure time to
budget toward home schooling. It is the parents who ae forced to have their
children taught mono-theism by having them say "One nation under God"
which one might presume is the God of the majority of the people, i.e.,
Christian. When I first attended school the pledge was One ation,
indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all. I recall my resntment when the
pledge was changed, although I did not understand the issues. To me it
always sounded better the old way and felt awkward the new way. Come to
think of it, our govt has been hijacked by zealots.
righ...@idiot.com
>Regarding "Under God," in my opinion Congress skirted violating the
>First Amendment by making this Law.
Fortunately, YOU don't get to interpret the constitution
>However, the First Amendment freedom of speech gives people the right to
>recite whatever version of the Pledge of Allegiance they want to
>regardless if Congress was wrong to add "under God".
IOW, a "government" school.
It is indefensible for government (and unconstitutional) for a government institution to
promote ANY religious observation.
>
>What a mess!
>
>Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
>one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
>judges to justice.
Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
You cite it as IF it were "truth"
--------------------------------------------------------
You just have to love the way that Murdoch, Ailes and
FOX News do their best to get at least one mention of
the fascist Moonie rag into each and every edition of
FOX News Sunday -- as if it gives the paper more
"credibility" beyond fringe ditto-tangs and knee-jerk
right wingnuts that need the misleading "newspaper'
to bolster their warped world view
Gray Shockley
>> Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
>> one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
>> judges to justice.
>
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:32:24 -0500, righ...@idiot.com wrote:
> Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
>
> The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
>
> You cite it as IF it were "truth"
There's an interesting essay by C.G. Jung, entitled "Answer to Job".
Dr. Jung's major contention in that work was that Job was much, much more
moral than God.
It's fairly easy to overlook that the whole "book" of Job is, essentially, a
bar-bet between that god and his old assistant.
Kenpangborn
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.atheism, wi.general,
>milw.general, misc.education, alt.education
>The argument is not that simple. There is an element of coercion when
>children ae forced to make choices about religion which is not the same as
>adults having the right to choose whehter to recite certain words.
Let's pass a LAW which FORBIDS anyone from mentionong religion to children. Why
don't we make it a capital crime with universal death penalty? How DARE
parents think they can raise their children in a RELIGION????
>think of it, our govt has been hijacked by zealots.
>
YEAH!! Le]t's SHOOT EM! WHo the hell do they think they are? What makes them,
think they have ANY rights?
Richard
"M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1fypd2i.207k5xy99rwfN%idont...@toemail.com...
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
Originally written by Francis Bellamy in 1892.
There were schools in the 50's and 60's that punished students who refused
to stand and recite the pledge.
Mine was one of them.
Should we also punish those who dare not sing the national anthem when
appropriate and directed to do so?
The schools were wrong for imposing this mandate on the kids to begin with.
I never believed that making such a statement every morning, or not making
it, would ever have any influence on what I did or did not do that day, or
ever.
John Gault
"Uday" Pangborn speaks his "mind".
towelie
> There were schools in the 50's and 60's that punished students who
> refused to stand and recite the pledge.
And in the 80's.
> Mine was one of them.
Mine too.
--
aa #2133
apatriot #19
atheist_jhc
Did someone turn this Pangborn kook over to the FBI yet?
Carol Lee Smith
> > >think of it, our govt has been hijacked by zealots.
> > YEAH!! Le]t's SHOOT EM! WHo the hell do they think they are? What makes them,
> > think they have ANY rights?
> "Uday" Pangborn speaks his "mind".
Do we add "Uday" to your list of pseudonyms, John/Ken?
M. Clark
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:34:08 -0600, idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>
>
> >Regarding "Under God," in my opinion Congress skirted violating the
> >First Amendment by making this Law.
>
> Fortunately, YOU don't get to interpret the constitution
Thank you for replying.
I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
religion. The only thing that Congress explicitly cannot do is make
laws addressing religious matters.
>
> >However, the First Amendment freedom of speech gives people the right to
> >recite whatever version of the Pledge of Allegiance they want to
> >regardless if Congress was wrong to add "under God".
>
> IOW, a "government" school.
>
> It is indefensible for government (and unconstitutional) for a government
> institution to promote ANY religious observation.
You're evidently letting your emotions and biases cloud the plain
english meaning of the First Amendment. Indeed, consider that Thomas
Jefferson, the person often credited with first writing the words
"separation of church and state," was known to attend worship service in
the Nation's Capitol building. Indeed, people who hate Jesus would
condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it "obviously"
violates the First Amendment separation of church and state myth. But
don't take my word that this and other government buildings were used
for religious purposes by people who knew the Constitution better than
we do. Try this URL:
http://www.becketfund.org/other/Breyer-Jefferson.html
Regarding the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance, note that
the First Amendment's freedom of speech essentially gives everybody the
right to recite these words should they so choose; there is no explicit
First Amendment restrictions as to when or where they should or
shouldn't be when they recite these or any other words.
>
> >
> >What a mess!
> >
> >Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
> >one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
> >judges to justice.
>
> Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
Just because we don't have the means to prove it doesn't mean its not
true.
>
> The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
>
> You cite it as IF it were "truth"
Indeed, this is my opinion as much as your insinuation that the Bible is
not true is your opinion. And thank you for volunteering your opinion.
M. Clark
M. Clark
> "M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1fypd2i.207k5xy99rwfN%idont...@toemail.com...
> > Regarding "Under God," in my opinion Congress skirted violating the
> > First Amendment by making this Law. Although most Christians may not
> > see it this way, in my opinion just to keep peace in the "family" there
> > are certain religious-based words that shouldn't appear in any bill that
> > Congress sends to the President for his signature.
> >
> > However, the First Amendment freedom of speech gives people the right to
> > recite whatever version of the Pledge of Allegiance they want to
> > regardless if Congress was wrong to add "under God". So while the
> > courts can properly order schools not to force students to recite the
> > "under God" version of the pledge, the courts are wrong to silence
> > either version of the pledge if they are voluntarily recited.
> >
> > What a mess!
> >
> > Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
> > one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
> > judges to justice.
> >
> > M. Clark
> The argument is not that simple. There is an element of coercion when
Thank you for replying.
I think the Constitution is clear regarding where the lines are drawn
concerning Congress not being able to officially act on religious
matters in any way versus our freedom of speech. If there's any
confusion here it's that our courts are not blessed with the wisdom to
respect those lines.
M. Clark
Carol Lee Smith
> ... Indeed, consider that Thomas
> Jefferson, the person often credited with first writing the words
> "separation of church and state,"
Often, but perhaps not accurately. In The Godless Constitution, Kramnick
& Moore credit someone else, perhaps Burke, with originating the
metaphor.
> was known to attend worship service in the Nation's Capitol building.
Tell us more. Do you have something he wrote in which he (Jefferson) said
this? or perhaps details about what was preached at these worship
services? Any particular denomonation?
> Indeed, people who hate Jesus
And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
<<would condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it
"obviously" violates the First Amendment separation of church and state
myth. >>
And what is it about separation of church and state which you think is
mythical?
> Regarding the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance, note that
> the First Amendment's freedom of speech essentially gives everybody the
> right to recite these words should they so choose; there is no explicit
> First Amendment restrictions as to when or where they should or
> shouldn't be when they recite these or any other words.
In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
To which god does this phrase refer?
Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had any
business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had been the
secular pledge of a secular nation.
There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the addition in
'54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
pledge.
> > Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
> Just because we don't have the means to prove it doesn't mean its not
> true.
In the same way that the Koran is true? In the same way that the Bagavad
Gita is true?
> > The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
> > You cite it as IF it were "truth"
> Indeed, this is my opinion as much as your insinuation that the Bible is
> not true is your opinion. And thank you for volunteering your opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An unfortunate corollary of having a small minority knowing more and
more about less and less is a large majority knowing less and less about
more and more. --- Mike Gazzaniga, "The Mind's Past"
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
Dana
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103072...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, M. Clark wrote:
>
> > ... Indeed, consider that Thomas
> > Jefferson, the person often credited with first writing the words
> > "separation of church and state,"
>
> Often, but perhaps not accurately. In The Godless Constitution, Kramnick
> & Moore credit someone else, perhaps Burke, with originating the
> metaphor.
>
> > was known to attend worship service in the Nation's Capitol building.
>
> Tell us more. Do you have something he wrote in which he (Jefferson) said
> this? or perhaps details about what was preached at these worship
> services? Any particular denomonation?
>
> > Indeed, people who hate Jesus
>
> And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
You.
>
> <<would condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it
> "obviously" violates the First Amendment separation of church and state
> myth. >>
>
> And what is it about separation of church and state which you think is
> mythical?
Where is it written in the Constitution. The words separation of church and
state are not in the Constitution.
>
> > Regarding the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance, note that
> > the First Amendment's freedom of speech essentially gives everybody the
> > right to recite these words should they so choose; there is no explicit
> > First Amendment restrictions as to when or where they should or
> > shouldn't be when they recite these or any other words.
>
> In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
Nope, not at all. It is recognizing that the nation is a religious nation,
with a religious founding. It does not recgognize any paticular religion,
nor is it a state establishment of religion.
>
> To which god does this phrase refer?
Whomever you want it to refer to.
>
> Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
> what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had any
> business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had been the
> secular pledge of a secular nation.
There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
audience of our children in the public schools.
>
> There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the addition in
> '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
> pledge.
That is only your very misguided opinion.
>
> > > Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
>
> > Just because we don't have the means to prove it doesn't mean its not
> > true.
>
> > > The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
>
> > > You cite it as IF it were "truth"
>
> > Indeed, this is my opinion as much as your insinuation that the Bible is
> > not true is your opinion. And thank you for volunteering your opinion.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
Larry Smith
"Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote in message
news:vi8ebir...@corp.supernews.com...
It is a shorthand statement of the Establishment Clause, just as Jefferson's
"wall of separation" elucidates and clarifies the First Amendment's
prohibition against state action to promote religion. You may take a
civics class on the subject for details. Obviously you are illiterate on
the subject.
If you were capable of reading scholarly treatises, briefs in which there
are copious quotes from the Founders like Madison and Jefferson are helpful
too, particularly when the quotes happen to be legislative history of the
drafting of the First Amendment.
> >
> > > Regarding the "under God" version of the Pledge of Allegiance, note
that
> > > the First Amendment's freedom of speech essentially gives everybody
the
> > > right to recite these words should they so choose; there is no
explicit
> > > First Amendment restrictions as to when or where they should or
> > > shouldn't be when they recite these or any other words.
> >
> > In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
>
> Nope, not at all. It is recognizing that the nation is a religious nation,
> with a religious founding. It does not recgognize any paticular religion,
> nor is it a state establishment of religion.
> >
> > To which god does this phrase refer?
>
> Whomever you want it to refer to.
Fine, then. Let's call the god "Lucifer." Would that suit you?
> >
> > Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
> > what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had
any
> > business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had been the
> > secular pledge of a secular nation.
>
> There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
Uh, yeah, and the sky ain't blue either.
> What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
> forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
> audience of our children in the public schools.
Have you been smoking pot? You trailed off on a tangent there,
Raffaniello.
Besides, you will have to supply proof that schools teach or endorse
homosexuality or homosexual acts.
> >
> > There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the addition
in
> > '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
> > pledge.
>
> That is only your very misguided opinion.
> >
> > > > Now why would you cite an unprovable/unproven tome?
> >
> > > Just because we don't have the means to prove it doesn't mean its not
> > > true.
> >
> > > > The "bible" is a "thing" you accept, as truth" based SOLELY on faith
> >
> > > > You cite it as IF it were "truth"
> >
> > > Indeed, this is my opinion as much as your insinuation that the Bible
is
> > > not true is your opinion. And thank you for volunteering your
opinion.
>
> --
> "The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
> rights, and the rights of man."
> -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
> (1801-1809)
>
>
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land.
The Declaration of Independence does not possess the force of law. The
Constitution does, however.
Bob LeChevalier
><righ...@idiot.com> wrote:
>I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
>the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
>First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
>expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
>wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
>religion. The only thing that Congress explicitly cannot do is make
>laws addressing religious matters.
The 14th amendment guarantees all of the rights and privileges of the
constitution will not be abridged by the states. This added all state
and local governments to "Congress" in the first amendment.
Then note that anything done by the government except perhaps acts of
the President and the Supreme Court authorized directly by the
Constitution, is a result of some act of Congress. Independent
agencies, for example, have no power except that granted by Congress.
Therefore, if Congress cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of
religion, no agency can act so as to respect an establishment.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, M. Clark wrote:
> > > Indeed, people who hate Jesus
cs: > > And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
> You.
Once again, evidence challenged Dana makes an allegation he cannot support
with proof.
> > <<would condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it
> > "obviously" violates the First Amendment separation of church and state
> > myth. >>
> > And what is it about separation of church and state which you think is
> > mythical?
> Where is it written in the Constitution. The words separation of church and
> state are not in the Constitution.
And do you have a right to a fair trial? Is that in the Constitution?
Is religious liberty constitutional principle? Is it in the
Constitution?
> > In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
> Nope, not at all.
Then your opinion is in direct opposition to the president who put it in
the pledge.
> It is recognizing that the nation is a religious nation,
> with a religious founding.
This nation has a religious founding? Which religion would that be? Can
you provide proof that this nation has a religious founding? I think you
have not been paying to attention to information which has been posted
here.
<<>It does not recgognize any paticular [sic] religion, nor is it a state
establishment of religion.>>
> > To which god does this phrase refer?
> Whomever you want it to refer to.
That is a strange comment. You apparently think it is fine if it is up to
me to decide which god this phrase refers to, but you don't think it is
fine if I decide that the pledge as it was pre-54 was an inclusive oath,
and that putting in a religious reference--and "God (especially with a big
<G>) is a religious reference--turns it into an exclusive oath.
> > Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
> > what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had any
> > business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had been the
> > secular pledge of a secular nation.
> There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
Yes, there is. God is a religious reference, even though you claim it is
not.
> What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
> forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
> audience of our children in the public schools.
Forcing the belief? Have any evidence of this?
I think it is just another of your strawman arguments.
> > There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the addition in
> > '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
> > pledge.
> That is only your very misguided opinion.
President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
God" into law.
"Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.
But Dana claims it is not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dream on, Dana.
Dana
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:apn8ivseev53fc5go...@4ax.com...
> idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
> ><righ...@idiot.com> wrote:
> >I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
> >the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
> >First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
> >expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
> >wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
> >religion. The only thing that Congress explicitly cannot do is make
> >laws addressing religious matters.
>
> The 14th amendment guarantees all of the rights and privileges of the
> constitution will not be abridged by the states. This added all state
> and local governments to "Congress" in the first amendment.
>
> Then note that anything done by the government except perhaps acts of
> the President and the Supreme Court authorized directly by the
> Constitution, is a result of some act of Congress. Independent
> agencies, for example, have no power except that granted by Congress.
> Therefore, if Congress cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of
> religion, no agency can act so as to respect an establishment.
And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
secular humanism in the schools.
Carol Lee Smith
> And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
> secular humanism in the schools.
If you know of some school which has established secular humanism as
school policy, provide it.
If you can.
Dana
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
>
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, M. Clark wrote:
>
> > > > Indeed, people who hate Jesus
>
> cs: > > And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
>
> > You.
>
> Once again, evidence challenged Dana makes an allegation he cannot support
> with proof.
No Carol, all we have to do is see your posts.
>
> > > <<would condemn Jefferson's expression of faith today because it
> > > "obviously" violates the First Amendment separation of church and
state
> > > myth. >>
>
> > > And what is it about separation of church and state which you think is
> > > mythical?
>
> > Where is it written in the Constitution. The words separation of church
and
> > state are not in the Constitution.
>
> > > In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
>
> > Nope, not at all.
>
> Then your opinion is in direct opposition to the president who put it in
> the pledge.
Nope, not at all.
>
> > It is recognizing that the nation is a religious nation,
> > with a religious founding.
>
> This nation has a religious founding? Which religion would that be?
Depends on the colony in question.
>Can
> you provide proof that this nation has a religious founding?
History proves that.
>
> <<>It does not recgognize any paticular [sic] religion, nor is it a state
> establishment of religion.>>
>
> > > To which god does this phrase refer?
>
> > Whomever you want it to refer to.
>
> That is a strange comment.
Nope not at all. The use of God in the pledge is Generic.
> <G>) is a religious reference--turns it into an exclusive oath.
>
> > > Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
> > > what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had
any
> > > business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had been the
> > > secular pledge of a secular nation.
>
> > There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
>
> Yes, there is.
No there is not Carol. You can whine and bitch about this all you want, it
will not change the fact that the pledge is not an religious endorsement
from the government.
>
> > What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
> > forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
> > audience of our children in the public schools.
>
> Forcing the belief? Have any evidence of this?
Yup, the modern day Public School.
> > > There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the
addition in
> > > '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
> > > pledge.
>
> > That is only your very misguided opinion.
>
> President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
> transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
> way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
> will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
Yep he was recognizing that we are indeed a religious nation, and have a
history of being a religious nation. We have many religions in this country
Carol, that is why we are considered a religious nation.
>
> President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
> pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
> God" into law.
>
> "Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
> town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
> and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.
Yep just like our DOI
>
> But Dana claims it is not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not religious it only recognizes that we are a religious nation, with
a religious history.
>
> Dream on, Dana.
>
>
Carol Lee Smith
> And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
> secular humanism in the schools.
I haven't seen him say it is OK to establish secular humanism in the
schools.
Bob, do you think it is OK to establish secular humanism in the schools?
Bob, do you know of any schools which have established secular humanism in
the schools?
Carol, a Bright in WI
Who doesn't know of any schools in which secular
humanism has been established.
Dana
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103072...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
You keep on running away from where I have posted just that Carol.
Why is that?
Why do you want to keep all the kids in the public schools Carol?
Why do you want to know where the parents are sending their kids to school?
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > Indeed, people who hate Jesus
> > cs: > > And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
> > > You.
> > Once again, evidence challenged Dana makes an allegation he cannot support
> > with proof.
> No Carol, all we have to do is see your posts.
They are out there for everyone to see. You are the only one claiming
phantasmagoric citings of claims by me of hate toward any entity named
Jesus.
> > > > And what is it about separation of church and state which you think is
> > > > mythical?
> > > Where is it written in the Constitution. The words separation of church
> > > and state are not in the Constitution.
> >
> > > > In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
> > > Nope, not at all.
> > Then your opinion is in direct opposition to the president who put it in
> > the pledge.
> Nope, not at all.
Notice that you snipped the Eisenhower quotes. Why is that, Strawman
Dana Rafaniello?
> > > It is recognizing that the nation is a religious nation,
> > > with a religious founding.
> > This nation has a religious founding? Which religion would that be?
> Depends on the colony in question.
You said the nation is a religious nation. Now you have changed your mind
and your claim is colonies are what you were talking about?
Interesting.
> > Can you provide proof that this nation has a religious founding?
> History proves that.
It should be a piece of cake for you to prove what you claim.
But you never do, because you are unable to do so.
> > <<>It does not recgognize any paticular [sic] religion, nor is it a state
> > establishment of religion.>>
> > > > To which god does this phrase refer?
> > > Whomever you want it to refer to.
> > That is a strange comment.
> Nope not at all. The use of God in the pledge is Generic.
Generic God? You do come up with the most charming designators.
Does this generic god have a UPC?
> > <G>) [God] is a religious reference--turns it into an exclusive oath.
> > > > Fundamental to this issue is not whether people have a right to recite
> > > > what they would like to recite, but whether governmental entities had
> > > > any business injecting a religious endorsement into a what had
> > > > been the secular pledge of a secular nation.
> > > There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
> > Yes, there is.
> No there is not Carol. You can whine and bitch about this all you want, it
> will not change the fact that the pledge is not an religious endorsement
> from the government.
I said that "under god" was a religious injection.
You have claimed that "God" is not a religious reference.
> > > What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
> > > forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
> > > audience of our children in the public schools.
> > Forcing the belief? Have any evidence of this?
> Yup, the modern day Public School.
Oh, and that is generic, too? To get off the hook of providing evidence,
Dana "Strawman" Rafaniello once again tap dances.
> > > > There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the
> addition in
> > > > '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
> > > > pledge.
> > > That is only your very misguided opinion.
> > President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
> > transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
> > way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
> > will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
> Yep he was recognizing that we are indeed a religious nation, and have a
> history of being a religious nation. We have many religions in this country
> Carol, that is why we are considered a religious nation.
A reason we have many religions in this country is because there is no
established religion. A reason we have so many is because we have
religious liberty, a phrase which is not in the Constitution.
> > President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
> > pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
> > God" into law.
> > "Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
> > town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
> > and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.
> Yep just like our DOI
Better go back and read the DoI again. It doesn't say that.
> > But Dana claims it is not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> It is not religious it only recognizes that we are a religious nation, with
> a religious history.
> > Dream on, Dana.
And on, and on, and on, and on.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > If you know of some school which has established secular humanism as
> > school policy, provide it.
> You keep on running away from where I have posted just that Carol.
Name a school, Raffaniello.
Any school.
> Why is that?
Name a school, Raffaniello.
Any school.
> Why do you want to keep all the kids in the public schools Carol?
I don't.
> Why do you want to know where the parents are sending their kids to school?
Have I said I want to know where parents are sending their kids to school,
or is this your Strawman imagination?
Name a school, Raffaniello, any school.
Herman Rubin
>> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, M. Clark wrote:
....................
>> > There is no doubt that the intention of those who endorsed the addition in
>> > '54 did so with the intention of injecting religion into the secular
>> > pledge.
>> That is only your very misguided opinion.
>President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
>transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
>way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
>will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
>President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
>pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
>God" into law.
>"Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
>town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
>and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.
>But Dana claims it is not religious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Dream on, Dana.
Eisenhower was a very regular churchgoer. Among some of
us academics, this was so he could get his orders. He
was not a military leader, but someone who could keep
conflicts between those who were under control.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Bob LeChevalier
>"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103072...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana wrote:
>> cs: > > And who would that be? Who claims to hate Jesus?
>>
>> > You.
>>
>> Once again, evidence challenged Dana makes an allegation he cannot support
>> with proof.
>
>No Carol, all we have to do is see your posts.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> > > In your opinion, is the phrase "under God" a religious reference?
>>
>> > Nope, not at all.
>>
>> Then your opinion is in direct opposition to the president who put it in
>> the pledge.
>
>Nope, not at all.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>>Can you provide proof that this nation has a religious founding?
>
>History proves that.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> That is a strange comment.
>
>Nope not at all. The use of God in the pledge is Generic.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> > There is no religious endorsement in the pledge.
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>
>No there is not Carol.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>You can whine and bitch about this all you want, it
>will not change the fact that the pledge is not an religious endorsement
>from the government.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> > What you claim about the pledge could also be said of the public schools
>> > forcing the belief that homosexual sex acts are normal on the captive
>> > audience of our children in the public schools.
>>
>> Forcing the belief? Have any evidence of this?
>
>Yup, the modern day Public School.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> President Eisenhower said: "In this way we are reaffirming the
>> transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this
>> way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
>> will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
>
>Yep he was recognizing that we are indeed a religious nation, and have a
>history of being a religious nation. We have many religions in this country
>Carol, that is why we are considered a religious nation.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>> President Eisenhower further alluded to the religious aspects of the
>> pledge on June 14, 1954, when he signed the insertion of the phrase "under
>> God" into law.
>>
>> "Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and
>> town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation
>> and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower said.
>
>Yep just like our DOI
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:apn8ivseev53fc5go...@4ax.com...
>> idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>> ><righ...@idiot.com> wrote:
>> >I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
>> >the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
>> >First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
>> >expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
>> >wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
>> >religion. The only thing that Congress explicitly cannot do is make
>> >laws addressing religious matters.
>>
>> The 14th amendment guarantees all of the rights and privileges of the
>> constitution will not be abridged by the states. This added all state
>> and local governments to "Congress" in the first amendment.
>>
>> Then note that anything done by the government except perhaps acts of
>> the President and the Supreme Court authorized directly by the
>> Constitution, is a result of some act of Congress. Independent
>> agencies, for example, have no power except that granted by Congress.
>> Therefore, if Congress cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of
>> religion, no agency can act so as to respect an establishment.
>
>And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
>secular humanism in the schools.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>
>"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103072...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana Rafaniello wrote:
>>
>> > And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to
>establish
>> > secular humanism in the schools.
>>
>> If you know of some school which has established secular humanism as
>> school policy, provide it.
>
>You keep on running away from where I have posted just that Carol.
>Why is that?
>Why do you want to keep all the kids in the public schools Carol?
Pile on the straw.
>Why do you want to know where the parents are sending their kids to school?
Why do you beat your three wives hourly?
David Jensen
<vi8oq1c...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:apn8ivseev53fc5go...@4ax.com...
>> idont...@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
>> ><righ...@idiot.com> wrote:
>> >I commend myself for being able to _accept_ the plain english meaning of
>> >the Constitution. Indeed, it's obvious that the only entity that the
>> >First Amendment places any restrictions on with respect to religious
>> >expression is Congress. And Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it
>> >wanted to; the First Amendment doesn't say that Congress cannot discuss
>> >religion. The only thing that Congress explicitly cannot do is make
>> >laws addressing religious matters.
>>
>> The 14th amendment guarantees all of the rights and privileges of the
>> constitution will not be abridged by the states. This added all state
>> and local governments to "Congress" in the first amendment.
>>
>> Then note that anything done by the government except perhaps acts of
>> the President and the Supreme Court authorized directly by the
>> Constitution, is a result of some act of Congress. Independent
>> agencies, for example, have no power except that granted by Congress.
>> Therefore, if Congress cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of
>> religion, no agency can act so as to respect an establishment.
>
>And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
>secular humanism in the schools.
I do not. I see no evidence that anyone has established or is trying to
establish it, however. Do you have evidence to support your innuendo?
David Jensen
I disagree with Carol on school choice. I think that a choice that works
somewhat like college choice is appropriate for K-12, but I don't see
what your diversionary question has to do with your unsupported claim
that "it is ok to establish secular humanism in the schools."
Could you explain and support your claim and then explain why you
changed the subject?
Gray Shockley
(in message <1fypouh.5nd3a61nedc15N%idont...@toemail.com>):
> You're evidently letting your emotions and biases cloud the plain
> english meaning of the First Amendment. Indeed, consider that Thomas
> Jefferson, the person often credited with first writing the words
> "separation of church and state," was known to attend worship service in
> the Nation's Capitol building.
Have you ever seen the "Jefferson Bible"?
There are copies on the web.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
>secular humanism in the schools.
Which is of course a deliberate lie on your part to avoid addressing
the point.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
Ahhh a very good pro religious right web site.
These are some of the people who spend great sums of money supporting pro
voucher groups for example.
Now for the rest:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's set the record straight on the matter of Jefferson attending church,
church services held in Congress, Jefferson's conversion to Christianity,
etc.
****************************************************************
Some who opposed Jefferson constricted the meaning of religion to matters
of the church. Ignoring his public professions of faith, David Daggett, a
New Haven lawyer and Federalist, attacked Jefferson for not being a good
church member. "It is a well established fact," Daggett wrote in 1800,
"that Mr. Jefferson never has attended public worship during a residence of
several years in New York and Philadelphia." The writer was unimpressed by
reports that Jefferson had provided financial support for a minister.
Daggett expressed his willingness to give the presidential candidate credit
for such an act only if "he would attend [the preacher's] ministrations and
not confine them to servants."34
34. Connecticutensis, Three Letters to Abraham Bishop (Hartford, 1800),
28-29. 35. Ibid., 29-30. 36. Ibid., 31.
SOURCE: "God-And a Religious President . . . Or Jefferson and No God":
Campaigning for a Voter-Imposed Religious Test in 1800, Frank Lambert, pp
781-82 JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE, VOLUME 39 AUTUMN 1997 NUMBER 4
****************************************************************
Except a small Catholic chapel there was only one church building
in the entire city, and this tiny wooden sanctuary was attended by a
congregation which seldom exceeded twenty persons.8 This absence of
churches was entirely, in. keeping with the inclination of people of
fashion. The first Republican administration came, testifies Winfield
Scott, in "the spring tide of infidelity. . . At school and college, most
bright boys, of that day, affected to regard religion as base superstition
or gross hypocricy." 1
NOTESl
8. This was a little Presbyterian church building, which was
abandoned after 1800. (Bryan, Wilhelmus Bogart, History of the National
Capital from its Foundation through the Period of the Adoption of the
Organic Act. 9. vols. New York. (1914-16) 1, 232; . (Bryan.)and see Hunt
Gaillard, editor. First Forty Years of Washington Society, portrayed by the
Family Letters of Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith. New York. (1906).13-14
(Hunt.)
1. Memoirs of Lieut: General Scott, 9-10. Among the masses of the
people, however, a profound religious movement was beginning. (See Semple:
History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia; and
Cleveland: Great Revival in the West.)
A year or two later, religious services were held every Sunday
afternoon in the hall of the House of Representatives, which always was
crowded on these occasions. The throng did not come to worship, it appears;
seemingly, the legislative hall was considered to be a convenient
meeting-place for gossip, flirtation, and social gayety. The plan was soon
abandoned and the hall left entirely to profane usages. (Bryan, I, 606-07.)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Life of John Marshall, by Albert J. Beveridge,
Vol. III, Conflict and Construction, 1800-1815 Houghton Mifflin Company
(1919) pp. 6-7
****************************************************************
Received in my email this morning and my reply:
From: "Me You"
To: jal...@cox.net
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:01:31 +0000
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|I was wondering if you had ever seen this quote and (if so) if you had a more specific citation.
[ I replied]
Study Guide to Quotes:
Quotes in General
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7a.htm
Problematical Separationist Quotes
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7b.htm
Problematical Religious Right Quotes And Arguments
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd7d.htm
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|
>:|"The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis and the source of all
>:|genuine freedom in government.
>:|I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist
>:|and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a
>:|controlling influence."
>:| - James Madison
[ I replied]
The above is bogus.
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|The only variation I've seen is with ellipsis between "freedom in government" and "I am persuaded". Is this another take off of the religion is the foundation of government misquote?
[ I replied]
It is some sort of creation, in part from perhaps some things that
Madison actually had said, and reworked like the above misquote you have
noted.
I have never seen the above quote until the past week. In one of the
newsgroups some nut began posting the above and now you have mentioned it.
I am wondering if this has been out there all along or just a recent
creation.
Where have you found the quote, what sites?
The idiot in the newsgroups won't give a cite for where he found it.
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|Also, have you received any other information on this quote:
>:|
>:|"Sir said Mr. J. [Jefferson] no nation has ever yet existed or been
>:|governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the
>:|best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate
>:|of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good
>:|morning sir."
>:|
>:|Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession
>:|of the Library of Congress, Washington Parish, Washington City
>:|by Rev. Ethan Allen.
>:|>:|n. 8
[ I replied]
"Another local tradition about Jefferson's religious practices can
also be verified by consulting his account books. It is well documented
that, when Jefferson first moved to Washington, he attended services at
Christ Church, then meeting in a converted tobacco barn on the southeast
side of Capitol Hill .'9 The rector of the church, Andrew T. McCormick
(1761-1841), was said to be a favorite of his. 80 McCormick was succeeded
in 1823 by the Reverend Ethan Allen, who claimed in a handwritten history,
"Washington Parish, Washington City," now in the Manuscript Division of the
Library of Congress, that Jefferson "always" sent McCormick "on the morning
after new years a note with $ 50 enclosed in it."81 That this claim is
supported by entries in the president's account book 82 lends plausibility
to an anecdote the Reverend Allen recorded in his history. Jefferson,
according to Allen, was walking to church one Sunday "with his large red
prayer book under his arm when a friend querying him after their mutual
good morning said which way are you walking Mr. Jefferson. To which he
replied to Church Sir. You going to Church Mr. J. You do not believe a word
in it. Sir said Mr. J. No nation has ever yet existed or been governed
without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion
that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am
bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir." While this
colloquy may not be a literal transcription, it is uncannily close in
spirit to Jefferson's attitude and actions as president."
80. McCormack, see his obituary in the National Intelligencer, April 28,
1841.
81. Allen's history is in the MMC Collection, 1167, MSS, LC.
82. July 2, 1804, June 3, 1805, January 6, 1807, Account Book, 1804-1826.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: RELIGION and the Founding of the American Republic.,
James H. Huston. Library of Congress, Washington, (1998) pp. 95-96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see from the above there is no actual cite given. There is an
entry in an account book of Jeffersons with regad to the money
However, that does not constitute a valid cite for a quote. Hutson even
admits that it is a "anecdote" as well as "local tradition." One should be
able to expect better than myth and hearsay from something that bears the
name of Library of Congress.
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|See the records recently reprinted by James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript
>:|Division of the Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the
>:|American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 84
[ I replied]
This is what is found on page 84 of the above named book:
"pruned of the mysterious and miraculous. Such was his passion for privacy
that he never shared his version of the scriptures with anyone; its sole
purpose was to help him work his way toward a better understanding of the
real Christ.33
Jefferson's "conversion" to a minimalist Christianity changed his
opinion of the value of the faith in civil affairs. He was now prepared to
concede what his fellow Founders had been arguing for decades religion
fostered morality and, consequently, had a role to play in a free society.
"The Christian religion," he wrote in 1801, when "brought to the original
purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all
others most friendly to liberty." 34 A few years later he informed a
Presbyterian minister that "Reading, reflection and time have convinced me
that the interests of society require the observation of those moral
precepts . . . in which all religions agree."35 Later still, he indicated
that he now agreed with his former opponents that "a future state of
retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here" was a crucial
concept for the promotion of public morality. 36
As president, Jefferson put his rejuvenated faith into practice in
the most conspicuous form of public witness possible, regularly attending
worship services where the delegates of the entire nation could see him in
the "hall" of the House of Representatives. According to recollections of
an early Washington insider, "Jefferson during his whole administration,
was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and
the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever after
words by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him." 37 Contemporary
sources confirm that the president "constantly attended public worship in
the Hall," once riding through a cloudburst to get to services on time." 38
There are numerous anecdotes about Jefferson's impact on his fellow
worshipers, including one in 1806 about the wife of a New York senator,
Catharine Mitchill, stepping on the president's foot at the end of a House
service and being "so prodigiously frighten'd that I could not stop to make
an apology." 39
Church services in the House began as soon as the government moved
to Washington, in the fall of 1800, as a letter of the Senate chaplain,
Thomas Claggett (1783-1816), the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland, reveals:
writing to a fellow clergyman on February 18, 1801, Bishop Claggett
described "a course of Sermons which I have delivered on Sundays in the
Capitol on the truth of the Divine System."40 From the beginning, services
were open to the public and, for a time, they were so popular that the
House on Sunday mornings became the rendezvous for the "youth, beauty and
fashion" of Washington.41
Apparently the House was used because of the shortage of places of
worship in the raw, young District of Columbia. Services in the Capitol
continued, however, into the 1850s, long after Washington teemed with
churches. After the Civil War, from 1865-1868, the House permitted the
newly organized First Congregational Church of Washington to use its
chambers for church and Sunday school services,42 at precisely the time,
May 13, 1866, when Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which,
according to some later judicial theories, forbids religious activities on
public property.
There are numerous descriptions of early congressional church
services. A Washington newspaper, The National Intelligencer, mentioned,
for example, an appearance in the House on July 4, 1801, of the Reverend
David Austin (1759-1831), who at the time considered himself "struck in
prophesy under the style of the `Joshua' of the American Temple. 114'
Having proclaimed to his congressional audience the imminence of the Second
Coming of"
33. Both the "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth" and "The Life and
Morals of Jesus" can be conveniently consulted in Adams, Jefferson's
Extracts.
34. Quoted in Eugene Sheridan, "Liberty and Virtue: Religion and
Republicanism in Jeffersonian Thought," unpublished paper in the author's
possession, 37.
35. Gaustad, Sworn on the Altar, 135.
36. Ibid., 139.
37. Gaillard Hunt, ed., The first forty years of
Washington society (New York: Charles Seribner's Sons, 1906), 13.
38. Manasseh Cutler to Josiah Torrey, January 3, 1803, William
Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, eds., Life journals and
Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL. D., 2 vols. (Athens: Ohio
University Press, 1987), 2, 1 19.
39. Catharine Mitchill to Margaret Miller, April 8, 1806, Carolyn
H. Sung, "Catharine Mitchill's Letters from Washington 18061812,"
Q-uarterlyjournal of the Library of Congress, 34 (July 1977), 175.
40. Thomas Claggett to James Kemp, February 18, 1801, Maryland
Diocesan Archives. Church services in the Capitol may have begun five years
earlier. Wilhelmus B. Bryan, a pioneering but conscientious historian of
Washington, D.C., mentions an item in the city's first newspaper (of which
only a few copies are extant), the Impartial Observer and Washington
Advertiser, June 19, 1795, which indicates that the Capitol, though still
in its initial stages of construction, was used for religious observances
of some sort. Wilhelmus B. Bryan, "The Beginnings of the Presbyterian
Church in the District of Columbia," Records of the Columbia Historical
Society, 8 (1905), 54.
41. Hunt, ed., Washington Society, 13.
42. Everett O. Alldredge, Centennial History of First Congregational United
Church of Christ Washington, D.C. (Baltimore: Port City Press, 1965), 10.
43. A. P. C. Griffin, "Issues of the Press in 1800-1802," Records
of the Columbia Historical Society, 4 (1901), 58.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: RELIGION and the Founding of the American Republic.,
James H. Huston. Library of Congress, Washington, (1998) pp. 84
==================================================
The above is as much crap as anything.
The following never happened:
"Jefferson's "conversion" to a minimalist Christianity changed his opinion
of the value of the faith in civil affairs. He was now prepared to concede
what his fellow Founders had been arguing for decades religion fostered
morality and, consequently, had a role to play in a free society"
Jefferson never converted to even a minimalist Christian.
Jefferson was never a "orthodox" Christian in any sense of the word beyond
perhaps as young child when he wouldn't have understood most of it anyways.
Of the above, he attended church while President. Big deal. He also
attended church before and after being President at times. While he
frequently wrote against the clergy he had friends who were clergy. he
supported some churches financially. Those are facts. They do not equal
what these folks are trying to make them equal.
In other cases, much of the rest is really a stretch which one can easily
see when comparing to the cites he does give. The main point, which I am
assuming is why they referred to page 84, is this
"Later still, he indicated that he now agreed with his former opponents
that "a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done
while here" was a crucial concept for the promotion of public morality." 36
Look at the cite:
36. Gaustad, Sworn on the Altar, 139.
Let me show you the bottom of page 138 and all of 139 of the Gaustad book:
"It certainly was the religion of John Adams, who had considered
himself a Unitarian for sixty years. "Had you and I been forty days with
Moses on Mount Sinai," Adams wrote to Jefferson soon after he received the
letter quoted above, and were we told that "one was three and three, one,
we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could never have
believed it." For truths come from Nature and from Reason, and
no-revelation, no miracle, no prophecy could ever convince us to "believe
that 2 and 2 make 5." If forced to assert something so flagrantly contrary
to Reason, "we should be more likely to say in our hearts . . . There is no
God! no Truth."
Whether Jefferson needed this confirmation or not, his own language
of condemnation grew ever stronger. "Ideas must be distinct before reason
can act upon them," he wrote in 1816, "and no man ever had a distinct idea
of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling
themselves priests of Jesus." Such priests specialize in "shedding
darkness, like the scuttle fish, thro' the element in which they move, and
making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy." Only Reason could
counteract the darkness with which so much of the world had thus been
inked.
"When shall we have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of
the Trinitarian arithmetic?" Jefferson impatiently asked a Unitarian
correspondent in 1821. System builders and theological scholastics "have so
distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus," he wrote, "so muffled them
in mysticisms, fancies, and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so
monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers." Having
previously asserted that there would never have been an infidel if there
had never been a priest, Jefferson now widened his net to include many
others: "Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an
infidel." He remained hopeful, however, in these last years of his life: "I
have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the
Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."
If trinitarian arithmetic was irrational, it was also, in
Jefferson's view, a historical. The great improvement that Judaism had made
upon all its surrounding religions was its
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Sworn on the Altar of God, A Religious Biography of
Thomas Jefferson, Edwin S. Gaustad, William B. Erdmenss Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK (1996) pp. 138-39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see anything there that supports this:
"Later still, he indicated that he now agreed with his former opponents
that "a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done
while here" was a crucial concept for the promotion of public morality." 36
In fact, if anything, it is the exact opposite.
[ "Me You" wrote ]
>:|All signs point to a letter written by Ethan Allen with the only title being Washington Parish, Washington City (Which I can't find online). The above citation was taken from the wallbuilders (site: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=24 16th Annotation )
[ I replied]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Critics, therefore, would be particularly troubled by President
Jefferson's words that:
No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.
The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and
I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of
my example." [16]
[16] Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in
possession of the Library of Congress, "Washington Parish, Washington
City," by Rev. Ethan Allen.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Founders on Public Religious Expression
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=24
****************************************************************
Now you can figure out for yourself the game that Barton is playing above
just by the information I have provided here.
It only gores to show he is still up to his old tricks as shown below
The Barton Chronicles
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bartchro.htm
***************************************************************
L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update):
From: buc...@exis.net [ buc...@exis.net was me at that period of time.]
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,a
lt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
>:|Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Dear Bob.
I trust you understand I copyrighted the above phrase.
I shall be looking forward to receiving my royalty check from you;
LOL Just kidding, sorry that was far too good to pass up
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana "strawman" Rafaniello wrote to lojbab:
>:|
>:|> And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
>:|> secular humanism in the schools.
>:|
>:|
>:|I haven't seen him say it is OK to establish secular humanism in the
>:|schools.
>:|
>:|Bob, do you think it is OK to establish secular humanism in the schools?
>:|
>:|Bob, do you know of any schools which have established secular humanism in
>:|the schools?
>:|
Not that it would matter to troll Dana any, but here is some info you and
others might find interesting:
I include it for a couple of reasons, one being because the term secular
humanists is used.
*******************************************************
Linn's call for a religious test echoed a similar debate held at the
constitutional and ratifying conventions of 1787-1789.3 Opposing each other
then were delegates with fundamental differences in their conception of
religion's proper place in American public life. On one side were those
stressing that America was a Christian nation and should be led by
Christians. On the other were those emphasizing that the nation was a haven
of religious freedom and should separate matters of state and issues of
faith. The latter argument prevailed and resulted in a constitutional ban
against religious tests. But, while the Constitution guaranteed a secular
state, to many Americans who considered religion central in their lives,
especially defenders of Protestant orthodoxy, the issue was not settled.
They discovered during the presidential campaign of 1800 the means and a
forum for attaining their goal: a voterimposed religious test to be won in
the arena of public opinion. This essay explores that heated and, often,
acrimonious contest.
For the orthodox ministers who led the fight, the year 1800 represented
their best opportunity since 1787 to argue that a Christian nation must
have Christian leaders.4 . . . The Federalist-dominated Congress
capitalized on the outsized fear of foreign intrigue and restricted the
free speech provisions of the First Amendment by passing the Sedition Act,
aimed squarely at Jeffersonian newspaper editors. Some hoped that the
current atmosphere would permit a similar curb on freedom of religion.
While a few persons pondered ways to either amend or circumvent
constitutional safeguards protecting religion from state interference, most
opted to take their case directly to the people and seek a voter-imposed
religious test that would bar Jefferson from the White House.
Historians have analyzed the religious question in 1800 from several
perspectives. One scholar viewed it as a profound "political struggle
between rationalist Christianity and Protestant orthodoxy." In this
interpretation, the combatants fought over what was "true" faith and which
expression would best provide American society with a firm moral base.5 To
another, the matter was one between "secular humanists" who wanted no
discussion of religion at all in matters of state but were not necessarily
antireligious and those religious leaders who wished to present the
campaign as one for the survival of orthodox Christianity in the republic.6
And yet another, borrowing from Jefferson's own analysis of the campaign,
conceived of the fight over religion as narrow-minded sectarian bigotry.7
3. For the debate over religious tests at the constitutional and ratifying
conventions, see Daniel Dreisbach, "The Constitution's Forgotten Religion
Clause: Reflections on the Article VI Religious Test Ban," Journal of
Church and State 38 (Spring 1996): 261-96; Morton Borden, Jews, Turks, and
Infidels (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1984);
John M. Murrin, "Religion and Politics in America from the First
Settlements to the Civil War," in Religion and American Politics: From the
Colonial Period to the 1980s, ed. Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990), 19-43; Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of
the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina Press, 1961); James H. Smyhe, "Protestant Clergy, the First
Amendment, and Beginnings of a Constitutional Debate, 1781-1791," in The
Religion of the Republic, ed. Elwyn A. Smith (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress
Press, 1971), 116-53; and Edwin Gaustad, "Religious Tests, Constitutions,
and a `Christian Nation'," in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, eds. Ronald
Hoffman and Peter J. Albert (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of
Virginia, 1994), 218-35.
4. On religion and the campaign of 1800, see Mark A. Noll, One Nation Under
God? (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 74-89; Charles F. O'Brien, "The
Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign of 1800," Essex Institute
Historical Collections 107 (January 1971): 82-93; Constance B. Schulz, "`Of
Bigotry in Politics and Religion': Jefferson's Religion, the Federalist
Press, and the Syllabus," The Virginia Magazine of Biography and History 91
(January 1983): 73-91; Charles O. Lerche, Jr., "Jefferson and the Election
of 1800: A Case Study in the Political Smear," William and Mary Quarterly 5
(October 1948): 467-91; Fred C. Luebke, "The Origins of Thomas Jefferson's
Anti-Clericalism," Church History 32 (September 1963): 344-56; and L. H.
Butterfeld, "Elder John Leland, Jeffersonian Itinerant," Proceedings of the
American Antiquarian Society 62 (October 1952): 214-29.
5. See O'Brien, "The Religious Issue in the Presidential Campaign of 1800."
6. John Murrin, "Religion and Politics in America from the First
Settlements to the Civil War," in Religion and American Politics, ed. Noll,
19-43.
7. Schulz. "Of Bigotry in Politics and Religion."
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:34:29 -0500, M. Clark wrote
There is a version on the web.
Most references to copies are to the copy that
was edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.
While close, it is not a totally faithful version
I do have a version that is accurate that I have on my computer if you
would be interested in seeing it.
bucke...@nospam.net
Ooops forgot the cite.
>:|On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana "strawman" Rafaniello wrote to lojbab:
>:|
>:|> And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to establish
>:|> secular humanism in the schools.
>:|
>:|
>:|I haven't seen him say it is OK to establish secular humanism in the
>:|schools.
>:|
>:|Bob, do you think it is OK to establish secular humanism in the schools?
>:|
>:|Bob, do you know of any schools which have established secular humanism in
>:|the schools?
>:|
SOURCE: "God-And a Religious President . . . Or Jefferson and No God":
Campaigning for a Voter-Imposed Religious Test in 1800, Frank Lambert, pp
770-71 JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE, VOLUME 39 AUTUMN 1997 NUMBER 4
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Ike Milligan <accord...@mindspring.comnoaads> wrote:
>:|
>:|I think the Constitution is clear regarding where the lines are drawn
>:|concerning Congress not being able to officially act on religious
>:|matters in any way versus our freedom of speech. If there's any
>:|confusion here it's that our courts are not blessed with the wisdom to
>:|respect those lines.
>:|
What exactly are those lines?
Care to elaborate?
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Regarding "Under God," in my opinion Congress skirted violating the
>:|First Amendment by making this Law.
First of all your unsubstantiated personal opinion doesn't mean a whole
lot.
Secondly, a court has already ruled that Congress did, in fact, overstep
its authority.
Speaking of authority, what clause in the Constitution gives Congress the
authority to MAKE A LAW or PASS A LAW that has the purpose and function to
well see for yourself:
What clause in the Constitution gives Congress any authority in matters of
religion?
You read the following and try and tell me, with a straight face that
there was no intent to endorse religion, counter "atheism/communism" and
indoctrinate the children of American, in particular in religion. and only
one religion at that.
APPENDIX II
SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Circa 1954
(Abridged version of Original Complaint, Appendix B)
"Without. these words, ... the pledge ignores a definitive factor
in the American way of life and that. factor is belief in God. ,33
"An atheistic American .,. is a contradiction in terms."33
"[T]he American way of life is ... `a way of life that sees man as
a sentient being created by God and seeking to know His will, whose soul is
restless till he rests in God. "33
"[T]he fundamental basis of our Government is the recognition that
all lawful authority stems from Almighty God. "34
"The pledge of allegiance should be proclaimed in the spirit ...
reeogni[zing] God as the Creator of mankind, and the ultimate source both
of the rights of man and of the powers of government."35
"Certainly, in these days of great challenge to America, one can
hardly think of a more inspiring symbolic deed than for America to reaffirm
its faith in divine providence." 36
"What better training for our youngsters could there be than to
have them, each time they pledge allegiance to Old Glory, reassert their
belief, like that of their fathers and their fathers before them, in the
all-present, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful Creator.36
"[l]n times like these when Godless communism is the greatest peril
this Nation faces, it becomes more necessary than ever to avow our faith in
God and to affirm the recognition that. the core of our strength comes from
Him," 37
"Hence it is fitting that those two profoundly meaningful words
"under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance so that we and
our children, who recite the pledge far more often than adults, may be
reminded that spiritual strength derived from God is the source of all
human liberty. "37
"[The] principles of the worthwhileness of the individual human
being are meaningless unless there exists a Supreme Being."38
"He is the God, undivided by creed, to whom we look, in the final
analysis, for the well-being of our Nation. Therefore, when we make our
pledge to the flag I believe it fitting that we recognize by words what our
faith has always been. "39
[It is a] fundamental truth ... that a government deriving its
powers from the consent of the governed must look to God for divine
leadership."40
"We are asking that only two words be added to the Pledge of
Allegiance, but they are very significant words"41
[T]he Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag which stands for the United
States of America should recognize the Creator who we really believe is in
control of the destinies of this great Republic."41
"It is true that under the Constitution no power is lodged anywhere
to establish a religion. This is not an attempt to establish a religion; it
has nothing to do with anything of that kind. It relates to belief in God,
in whom we sincerely repose our trust."41
"Appropriations and expenditures for defense will be of value only
if the God under whom we live believes that we are in the right. We should
at all times recognize God's province over the lives of our people and over
this great Nation."41
"[The Pledge] is not only a pledge of words but also of belief."41
"[B]elief in God is part of our very lives. "41
"The United States is one of the outstanding nations of the world
standing foursquare on the principle that God governs the affairs of
men."42
[I]t is well that when the pledge of allegiance to the flag is made
by every loyal citizen and by the schoolchildren of America., there should
be embodied in the pledge our allegiance and faith in Almighty God. The
addition of the words `under God' will accomplish this purpose." 42
[W]hen Francis Bellamy wrote this stirring pledge, the pall of
atheism had not yet spread its hateful shadow over the world, and almost
everyone acknowledged the dominion of Almighty God."43
"Now that pagan philosophies have been introduced by the Soviet
Union, there is a necessity for reaffirming belief in God."44
"I appear here today in support of any and all bills that would
serve to recognize the power and universality of God in our pledge of
allegiance."45
"The significant. import of our action today ... is that we are
officially recognizing once again this Nation's adherence to our belief in
a. divine spirit., and that henceforth millions of our citizens will be
acknowledging this belief every time they pledge allegiance to our flag.
"46
"How fitting that we here today should take action to once more
affirm our belief in ... the guidance of a divine spirit." 46
"Once again we are proclaiming to the world that ... the flag which
flies over our land is a symbol of a nation and of a people under God. "46
"[T]his measure is more than one of passing importance. It goes to
the very fundamentals of life and creation. It recognizes that all things
which we have in the way of life, liberty, constitutional government, and
rights of man are held by us under the divine benediction of the Almighty.
There is a hope and a hereafter in these two words and they, of course,
should be included in the pledge of allegiance to Old Glory."47
"One thing separates free peoples of the Western World from the
rabid Communist, and this one thing is a belief in God. In adding this one
phrase to our pledge of allegiance to our flag, we in effect declare openly
that we denounce the pagan doctrine of communism and declare `under God' in
favor of free government and a free world."47
"Fortify our youth in their allegiance to the flag by their
dedication to `one nation under God. "48
"Regaining our reverence for God we in America in this 2(P century
can rediscover our own value and the solid basis on which it rests."49
"The first sentence of section 7 of the joint resolution (36 U.
S.C. sec. 172), as amended, `one Nation indivisible under God,' is a
realistic recognition of the theological and philosophical truth - the
existence of a Supreme Being."50
"Faith in God ... has never been misplaced. House Joint Resolution
243 is a proclamation to all the world and to ourselves, ever to keep us
mindful and prayerful, that the United States of America is in truth and in
the acknowledged fact, a 'Nation under God. "51
"[The joint resolution] seems to have struck a note of universal
approval, indicating an underlying acknowledgement of our indebtedness to
God and our dependence upon Him."52
"At this moment of our history the principles underlying our
American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a
system that does not believe in God. A system that denies the existence of
God.52
"Thus, the inclusion of God in our pledge of allegiance rightly and
most appropriately acknowledges the dependence of our people and our
Government upon that divinity that. rules over the destinies of nations as
well as individuals.52
"The God of nations who helped in bringing to a successful
conclusion the war of independence, has never ceased to control the destiny
of this great Nations, and I trust He never will."52
"[O]ne of the greatest differences between the free world and the
Communists [is] a belief in God. The spiritual bankruptcy of the Communists
is one of our strongest. weapons in the struggle for men's minds and this
resolution gives us a new means of using that weapon."52
"The use of the phrase `under God' in the pledge of allegiance to
the flag sets forth in a mere two words, but, very strong and meaningful
words, the fundamental faith and belief of America in the overruling
providence of God and our dependence at all times upon Him."52
"The recitation of this acknowledgement that God is the foundation
of our Nation will be of incalculable value, all through the years, of ever
keeping vividly before our people, including our children who from earliest
childhood, pledge their allegiance to the flag, that the real source of our
strength in the future, as in the past, is God. "52
[T]he Government and people of America have recognized the
necessity of doing the will of God as we see it, and of relying for our
strength and welfare on the protection of His divine providence."53
"[W]e wish now, with no ambiguity or reservation, to place
ourselves under the rule and care of God."53
"We Members of Congress ... felt and acted on the popular urge to
give expression to the conviction that our deliberations should be publicly
and tangibly submitted to the guidance of God."53
"[W]e do well to once more publicly and officially affirm our
faith."54
"[Q]ur citizenship is of no real value to us unless our hearts
speak in accord with our lips: and unless we can open our souls before God
and before Him conscientiously say, `I am an American."55
"The amendment to the pledge of allegiance to the flag, by
inserting the words `under God,' is a. simple device by which we can
verbally proclaim our intense desire to continue this land as `one Nation,
under God, indivrisible. "°55
"I believe it to be of great importance that we as a Nation
recognize a higher power than ourselves in the guidance of our existence.
This joint resolution recognizes that we believe there is a Divine Power,
and that we, our children, and our children's children should always
recognize it."56
"I believe we should trust in God and we should recognize that God
is guiding our destiny and the hopes and aspirations of this Nation."56
"It is so fitting that we declare to the world, in our position as
leader among the sister nations of the earth, our dependence upon Almighty
God. "57
"I am proud to have been associated with this effort that produced
this legislation which recognizes the importance of divine guidance in our
national affairs."58
"We see the pledge, as It. now stands, as a formal declaration of our duty
to serve God and our firm reliance, now as in 1776, on the protection of
divine providence. "59
"To put the words `under God' on millions of lips is like running
up the believer's flag as the witness of a great nation's faith."60
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will
daily proclaim in every city and town, every village anal rural
schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the
Almighty."61
"It is my belief that an extensive circulation of these printed
copies of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag will imprint, indelibly,
upon the minds of those who read them, whether they be young or old, that
their great Nation, these United States, exists and endures purposefully
`Under God."62
"Today we express ... our national dependence upon almighty God by
pledging, as a nation, our allegiance to the Stars and Stripes. ''63
"[T]he need now is for the Christian ideas to neutralize the
preponderance of material know-how . ... We cannot afford to capitulate to
the atheistic philosophies of godless men - we must strive to ever remind
the world that this great Nation has been endowed by a creator."63
"If we have no rights under God, then America has noWurpose of
existence. For America is all that she is simply because she recognizes our
rights under God.64
"The further men move from God and His principles, the worse it
will be for America."64
"Our people without God would be a people reading the death warrant
to real American freedom."64
"[The] right to profess God-given principles, to practice God-given
commandments, and to live Godordered lives ... is America and will always
be America. There is no other pattern of life that can bear this
trademark."64
"It is time that we really be neighbors in the Christian sense,
that we live as neighbors, and have trust one for the other. This is the
American way; this is God's way."64
"Only God-fearing men can guarantee to America her greatness, her
survival, and her continued blessings."64
"As these words are repeated, `one Nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all,' we are reminded not only of our
dependence upon God but likewise the assurance of security that can be ours
through reliance upon God."65
"These words, `under God,' ... can be taken as evidence of our
faith in that divine source of strength that has meant and always will mean
so much to us as a nation."65
"Let us never forget that recognition of God by this and the other
nations of the free world will mean victory and security against the forces
of evil that deny God. May we, as a nation under God, ever recognize Him as
the source of our refuge and strength."65
[O]n June 1 4, Flag Day, 1954, the President signed into law House
Joint Resolution 243, which added to the pledge of allegiance to the flag
of the United States the compelling and meaningful words `under God."66
"`Under God' in the pledge of allegiance to the flag expresses,
aptly and forcefully, a grateful nation's attitude of dependence upon
Almighty God. "66
"For under God this Nation lives."66
"These principles of the worthwhileness of the individual human
being are meaningless unless there exists a. Supreme Being."66
"Indeed, the one fundamental issue which is the unbridgeable gap
between America and Communist Russia is belief in Almighty God."66
"Fortify our youth in their allegiance to the flag by their
dedication to one nation under God."66
FOOTNOTES:
33. 100 Cong. Rec. 2, 1700 (Feb. 12, 1954) (Statement of Rep. Louis
C. Rabaut, sponsor of the House resolution to insert the words "under God'
into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance)
34. 100 Cong. Rec. 17 (Appendix), A2515-A2516 (Apr. 1, 1954)
(Statement of Rep. Louis C. Rabaut, sponsor of the House resolution to
insert the words "under God" into the previously secular Pledge of
Allegiance)
35. 10)0 Cong. Rec. 4, 5069 (Apr. 13, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Peter W. Rodino, Jr. in support of the resolution to insert the words
"under God" into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance)
36. 100 Cong. Rec. 5, 5915 (May 4, 1954) (Statement of Sen.
Alexander Wiley in support of Sen. Ferguson's resolution to insert the
words "under God" into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance)
37. 100 Cong. Rec. 5, 5915 (May 4, 1954) (Mlilwaukee Sentinel
editorial printed in the Congressional Record - with the unanimous consent
of the Senate - as requested by Sen. Alexander Wiley in support of Sen.
Ferguson's resolution to insert the words "under God" into the previously
secular Pledge of Allegiance)
38. 100 ) Cong. Rec. 5, 6077-6078 (May 5, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Louis C. Rabaut, sponsor of the House resolution to insert the words "under
God" into the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance)
39. 100 Cong. Rec. 5, 6085 (May 5, 1954) (Statement of Rep. Francis
E. Dom, supporting passage of House Joint Resolution 502 which sought to
insert the words "under God" into the previously secular Pledge of
Allegiance)
40. S. Rep. No. 1287, 83"' Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 100
Cong. Rec. 5, 6231 (May 10, 1954) (Letter of Sen. Homer Ferguson, sponsor
of the Senate resolution to insert the words "under God" into the
previously secular Pledge of Allegiance, to Sen. William Langer, Chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 10, 1954)
41. 100 Cong. Rec. 5, 6348 (May 11, 1954) (Sen. Homer Ferguson's
explanation of the joint resolution to insert the words "under God" into
the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance, to Sen. William Langer,
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 10, 1954
42. 100 Cong. Rec. 5, 6919 (May 20, 1954) (Rep. Homer D. Angell's
remarks on the joint resolution to insert the words "under God" into the
previously secular Pledge of Allegiance)
43. 100 Cong. Rec. 18 (Appendix), A3448 (May 11, 1954) (Letter
entered into the record by Rep. George H. Fallon. This was "[p]assed
without a single dissenting vote, and later adopted by the DAR., the Flag
House Association, the VFW, the DAV, sections of the American Legion ...
,incorporated in the pledge at the `I Am An American Day' ... etc., etc.")
44. Cong. Rec. 18 (Appendix), A4066 (May 24, 1954) (Newspaper
article from the Malden (Ivlass.) Press of May 13, 1954, entered into the
record by Rep. Angler L. Goodwin.)
45. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7590-7591 (June 2, 1954) (Rep. John R.
Pillion's statement provided on May 5, 1954 to Subcommittee No. 5 of the
House Committee on the Judiciary.)
46. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7757 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Oliver P. Bolton in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.,)
47. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7758 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Brooks in support. of the joint resolution to amend the previously secular
Pledge.)
48. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7759 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep. Louis
C. Rabaut in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.)
49. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7759 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Charles G. Oakman in support of the joint resolution to amend the
preciously secular Pledge.)
50. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7760 (June 7, 1954) (Letter written by the
Chairman of the Department of Political Science at the University of
Detroit, placed into the record by Rep. Brooks in support of the joint
resolution to amend the previously secular Pledge.)
51. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7761-7762 (June 7, 1954) (Statement. of Rep.
Barratt O'Hara in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.)
52. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7762-7763 (June 7, 195.1) (Statement. of Rep.
Wolverton in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.)
53 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7763-7764 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Peter W. Rodino, Jr. in support of the joint resolution to amend the
previously secular Pledge. Amazingly, included in this statement were the
words "I am firmly of the opinion that our Founding Fathers ... meant to
prevent . .. any provision of law that could raise one form of religion to
a position of preference over others." )
54. 100 Cong. Rec, 6, 7764 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep. Oliver
P. Bolton in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.)
55. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7765-7766 (June 7, 1954) (Statement of Rep.
Hugh J. Addonizio in support of the joint resolution to amend the
previously secular Pledge.)
56. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7833-7834 (June 8, 1954) (Statement of Sen.
Homer Ferguson in support of the joint resolution to amend the previously
secular Pledge.)
57. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7935 (June 9, 19'54) (Letter from Rep. Louis
C. Rabaut to President Eisenhower, informing him of the passage in Congress
of the joint resolution to amend the previously secular Pledge.)
58. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 7989 (June 10, 1954) (Statement. of Rep.
Charles G. Oakman recounting the passage of the joint resolution to amend
the previously secular Pledge.)
59 100 Cong. Rec. 7, 8563 (June 22, 1954) (Statement of Sen. Burke,
submitting a resolution to provide for printing of the now sectarian Pledge
as a Senate document. Sen, Burke also noted that the resolution adding
"under God" to the previously secular Pledge "had been passed by House and
Senate with no opposition.")
60. 100 Cong. Ree. 7, 8617-8618 (June 2'2, 1954) (Statement of Sen.
Homer Ferguson, reviewing the meaning of the new law that added "under God"
to the previously secular Pledge, and recapping the events of that first
Flag Day celebration with the new Pledge.)
61. 1 00 Cong. Rec. 7, 8618 (,June 22, 1954) (Statement by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as reported by Sen. Ferguson.)
62` 100 Cong. Rec. 7, 8893 (June 24, 1954) (Statement of Rep. Louis
C. Rabaut submitting a resolution to provide for printing of the now
sectarian Pledge as a House document.)
63. 100 Cong. Rec. 6, 8156 (June 14, 1955) (Rep. Louis C. Rabaut's
statement during the 1955 Flag Day ceremonies.)
64. 101 Cong. Rec. 18 (Appendix), A5920 A592l (Aug. 2, 1955)
(Article submitted by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut, sponsor of the House resolution
to insert the words "under God" into the previously secular Pledge.)
65. 100 Cong. Rec. 11, 14918-14919 (Aug. 17, 1954) (Remarks of Rep.
Wolverton entitled "One Nation Under God.")
66. 100 Cong. Ree. 12, 15828-158'29 (Aug. 20, 1954) (Remarks of
Rep. Louis C. Rabaut, sponsor of the House resolution placing the words
"under God" into the previously secular Pledge.)
Plaintiff/Appellant's Response to the Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing
En Banc filled by the State and Federal Defendants, Respectfully submitted,
December 16, 2002, Michael Newdow, Plaintiff/Appellant, First Amendmist
Church of True Science, Appendix II
>:|Finally, regarding our secular courts, note that Job 9:24 indicates that
>:|one of the ways God sends judgement upon a nation is by blinding its
>:|judges to justice.
You have that right, out secular courts and Job doesn't apply to our court
system or our government.
Carol Lee Smith
> "Dana" <your...@example.com> wrote:
> >"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Dana Rafaniello wrote:
> >> > And the big point you keep on ignoring is you think it is ok to
> >establish secular humanism in the schools.
> >> If you know of some school which has established secular humanism as
> >> school policy, provide it.
> >You keep on running away from where I have posted just that Carol.
> >Why is that?
> >Why do you want to keep all the kids in the public schools Carol?
> Pile on the straw.
Got a match?
> >Why do you want to know where the parents are sending their kids to school?
> Why do you beat your three wives hourly?
Ya know, I was thinking exactly that when I read Raffaneillo's post.
Glad someone else said it.
Carol
a humanist Bright, in WI
www.the-brights.net
Gray Shockley
(in message <q4baivgee2bdtn8gg...@4ax.com>):
> Gray Shockley <gra...@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
>>>> Have you ever seen the "Jefferson Bible"?
>>>>
>>>> There are copies on the web.
>
>
> There is a version on the web.
> Most references to copies are to the copy that
> was edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.
>
> While close, it is not a totally faithful version
>
> I do have a version that is accurate that I have on my computer if you
> would be interested in seeing it.
>
>
Yes, I would. Thank you.
Return address above (gra...@cybercoffee.org) is valid.
Gray
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:17:10 -0400, Craig Pennington
>:|<cpen...@milo.org> wrote:
>:|
>:|>> Where is it unconstitutional, and if it is, how was it added?
>:|
>:|>The 1954 legislation inserting "Under God" into the previously religiously
>:|>nuetral pledge is "a law repecting an establishment of religion" in that
>:|>it promotes a paricular class of religions, specifically the Monotheistic
>:|>ones, above other religions.
>:|Where does it promote any particular (g)od?
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions,
or prefer one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to
or to remain away from church against his will or
force him to profess a belief
or disbelief in any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
or professing religious beliefs
or disbeliefs,
for church attendance
or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities
or institutions,
whatever they may be called,
or whatever form they may adopt to teach
or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious
organizations
or groups,
and vice versa.
[Everson v. Bd of Ed]
>:|It's even valid for an invisible monkey's bannana if an atheist wants
>:|it to be.
>:|
>:|>> "Under God" is purely nonspecific, and can include an atheist's banana
>:|>> tree if that's what he worships.
>:|>So you claim that the word "God" is meaningless?
>:|
>:|"God" can be anything or anyone that one wants it to be.
>:|
>:|To an alcoholic, his booze is his god. There is nothing (likely) of
>:|greater value to him. It is his item of worship.
>:|
>:|>> The constitution denies a "state religion" like Catholic or Baptist.
>:|>> We are a revolution from England, which had/still has a state
>:|>> religion.
>:|
>:|>There was a debate, one piece of which is exemplified by the attempt by
>:|>Patric Henry to institute a tax in Virginia for the benefit of "Teachers
>:|>of the Christian Religion" and James Madison's campaign against this tax,
>:|>which pitted those who supported the accomodation of religious support
>:|>by government, provided that it was available to all against those who
>:|>argued that the only way to be truly neutral was to not have government
>:|>promoting any religion at all. Patrick Henry and the accomodationists
>:|>lost, and Madison and the seperationists won.
>:|
>:|>In Madison's view, the promotion of any class of religions (and at that
>:|>time, the phrase "the Christian Religion" was intended to be non-sectarian)
>:|>by civil authority was a violation of the rights of conscience of those not
>:|>belonging to that class of religions. The legislation adding "under God" to
>:|>the pledge promotes Monotheistic religions above others, and as such is a
>:|>violation of the rights of conscience of those who are not monotheists. It
>:|>is such violations that the establishment clause of the First Amendment was
>:|>intended to prevent.
>:|
>:|Yes, but that's a definite action towards the Christian God whether
>:|they like it or not, I fail to see how a reference to "Christian
>:|religon" is non-sectarian. The pledge is truly non-sectarian because
>:|God can mean whatever we want it to be.
See the Establishment Clause definition above
>:|
>:|>>>I'm perfectly tolerent of private behavior. Government promoted recitation
>:|>>>of religious opinions is not private behavior.
>:|>> Good, because there is no mention of "which" (g) one would choose to
>:|>> worship.
>:|
>:|>It is still government promoted religious opinion, and thus unconstitutional.
>:|
>:|Except that is not what the Constitution says. That's why Bush can
>:|push his religious assistance to the needy. He's not pushing the
>:|religion, just the assistance.
His religious assistance is also unconstitutional
Faith-Based Charities unconstitutional, says the father
of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
============================================================
SOMEONE SHOULD SEND THIS TO BUSH AND THOSE WHO ARE PULLING HIS STRINGS, OR
BETTER YET THE OPPOSITION, OR IS THERE NONE ANYMORE?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 21, 1811
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in
the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'' The bill enacts into and
establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the
organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even
the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change
could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of
which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. this particular
church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a
legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its
constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles
thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the
corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on
other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally
unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which
churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and
prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal
consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority
to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children
of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the
provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
--------------------------------------------------
NOTE, his reason for vetoing it was because it crossed the line of
separation between church and state and thus would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.
FOR FULL ARTICLE SEE:
Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
*******************************************************************
Charitable Choice Conference
Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
THE ONGOING FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS DOMINANCE:
From The Secret Service Agent's Slur, To Critiques Of The Ninth Circuit's
Pledge Of Allegiance Decision
By MARCI HAMILTON
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020801.html
Ike Milligan
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s0t9iv47o43f1f7hs...@4ax.com...
What is secular humanism? I have 98.6 degress from Fahrenheit and never
heard of it.
Ike Milligan
"towelie" <bugoN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfvsnr$jb945$1...@ID-138129.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Richard wrote:
>
> > There were schools in the 50's and 60's that punished students who
> > refused to stand and recite the pledge.
>
> And in the 80's.
>
> > Mine was one of them.
>
> Mine too.
>
> --
>
> aa #2133
> apatriot #19
>
>
In the 50's there were also public schools where a Bible teacher would come
in once a week with a felt-board and tell stories from the Bible to the
children, with pictures. It's also worth noting that the 50's included
betrayal of the Hungarian people by the U.s. govt encouraging them to rise
against the soviets and then allowing them to be imprisoned, slain and
tortured. In the 2nd Bush administration the people of Liberia are not being
helped and the Iraqis are being treated like dogs. The Christian nation that
is the U.S. is so narcissistic that it cares only for temporary
gratification at the expense of the rest of the world. Coincidence?
Bob LeChevalier
It's a red herring.
There are humanists, who according to the dictionary (Merriam-Webster)
follow
"3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests
or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects
supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and
capacity for self-realization through reason"
In addition, humanitarians, "a person promoting human welfare and
social reform" are also called "humanists".
Humanists who justify their humanism on religious grounds and who do
not reject the supernatural or God are religious humanists. Those who
do reject the supernatural as a reason for their humanism are called
secular humanists.
There was a group of a couple dozen noteworthy humanists that got
together several dozen years ago, and wrote a document called the
"Humanist Manifesto". Those who subscribe to it are "humanists", but
most "humanists" have never heard of the Manifesto. The Manifesto
reflects a secular humanist point of view, but because it represents a
creed, some claim that this form of secular humanism is a Godless
religion.
Religious extremists have taken to calling every atheist or humanist
or "liberal" a "secular humanist", and have claimed that they are
promoting the creed of "secular humanism" reflected in the Humanist
Manifesto. This ignores the facts that most humanists don't know or
subscribe to this creed, and that most humanists and "liberals" follow
a religious of the supernatural-accepting variety.
As such, millions of people are tarred with the label of a creed that
few of them would accept, and the resulting stereotype is used to
attack modern liberalism.
Carol Lee Smith
<<In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a young
scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed the aim of humanists in
education with these very blunt words: [see below for Dana's not so
accurate quotation]>>
I now know a bit more about the Dunphy article which was in the J/Feb '83
Humanist magazine, quote from which Dana "Strawman" Raffaniello provided
and which is below.
Mr. Dunphy was a third-place winner in the North American Essay Contest.
The essays of top winners of this contest are routinely published in The
Humanist, and they are never offered as any kind of official AHA position.
This is what Edd Doerr had to say about charges by Phyllis Schlafly that
she found 'proof' within Dunphy's article which bolstered her claims that
the Supreme Court's "early 1960's rulings against prayer and Bible reading
in public schools left an 'intellectual and moral vacuum' that was filled
with 'an affirmative hostility toward religion,' which has now been
'identified' as the 'religion of humanism.'" Please keep in mind that
while Dunphy was not speaking on behalf of AHA, Doerr CERTAINLY WAS, and
that Doerr was writing exactly 20 years ago. [The Humanist, p. 37,
July/Aug '83]
-----begin Edd Doerr commentary--
"The 'humanism in the schools' charges, though absurd, are made so often
and so loudly that too many uninformed persons are coming to believe them,
which in turn lends political support to the radical right campaigns to
get tax support for religious private schools through tuition tax credits
and to get government sponsored or mandated devotions into the schools.
So the charges must be answered, again and again.
"First, one paragraph out of one of ten essays printed in one issue of The
Humanist by an author who is not an elected officer of any humanist
organization proves only that one lone humanist wants to turn classrooms
into arenas of conflict between Christianity and humanism. No responsible
humanist organization has ever taken such a position, and no school board
or administration in the country would tolerate turning classrooms into
such arenas. Dunphy's suggestion--taken literally--is, in its way, as
extreme and irresponsible as the radical right view that public schools
should promote a fundamentalist outlook. ...
"Third, Schlafly, LaHaye, and Co., [and most certainly Dana] should put up
or shut up. If they think they have evidence that humanism is being
taught in certain schools, they should have the courage of their
convictions and take a case to court. they can surely afford the cost.
Falwell's Moral Majority alone took in nearly $7 million this past year.
Let them take their case to court, as several New Jersey citizens did in
the 1970s when five high schools began teaching Transcendental Meditation.
The plaintiffs proved in court that TM is religious and specifically Hindu
and won district and federal appeals court rulings that TM could not be
taught in public schools under the First Amendment. (I helped set up the
suit and wrote what was probably the first published article demonstrating
that Transcendental Meditation is a substantially religious movement.)
Until the Schlaflys and Falwells [and the Danas] take their charge to
court, they do not merit attention.
"Fourth, there are undoubtedly many humanistic values and ideas taught in
our public schools, but, it is important to note, they are values and
ideas on which there is a broad secular consensus and which are held by
mainstream Protestants, Catholics and Jews as well as by humanists and
others. The Schlaflys and Falwells make much of Humanist Manifestos I and
II. Reading the documents should make it clear that some of the values in
Humanist Manifesto I and probably most in Humanist Manifesto II are shared
by the mainstream of contemporary Christianity and Judaism. Values and
ideas that are specifically humanist and not shared by a broad spectrum of
society are not and should not be taught in public schools. (We will
ignore, for the moment, the fact that nearly all public schools strayings
from the constitutionally required neutrality are in the direction of
conservative Christianity.)
"Finally, all Americans need to be reminded from time to time that we live
in a pluralistic society whose basic laws require government to be neutral
with regard to religion. Neutrality is not hostility. Radical right
leaders and many of their followers may never acknowledge that truth, but
Americans of goodwill and common sense must make sure that our society's
pluralist equilibrium is not shoved off balance by the Falwells,
Schlaflys, Vigueries, [Danas,] and their allies in Congress [and in the
White House].
----end of Doerr commentary-----
It might be of interest to Dana and others that Mr. Dunphy prefaced his
essay with Luke 17:20-21 and also a quote from "The Gospel of Thomas," one
of the Gnostic manuscripts discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945:
"Jesus said, 'I have case fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it
until it blazes.'"
Dunphy closed with this as his next and final paragraph:
"Then, perhaps, we will be able to say with Tom Paine that 'the world is
my country, all [hu]mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my
religion.' It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle
replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge
triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive."
This is the quotation as presented by Dana. Please note that it was not
even accurate.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and
won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive
their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity
that recognizes and respects that spark of what theologians call divinity
in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless
dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be
ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to
convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of *the*
[*this word was left out of Dana's copy] educational level -- preschool
day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of
Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new
faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the
never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be
achieved."
-----end of Dana's quotation of Dunphy-----
Carol Lee Smith
> There was a group of a couple dozen noteworthy humanists
about 50% of whom were uni uni clergypersons
>that got
> together several dozen years ago, and wrote a document called the
> "Humanist Manifesto".
Folks should read it. It is available on the net.
Also HM II.
There is now a Humanist Manifesto III
Manifesto 2000 was written solely by Paul Kurtz and is also available on
the internet.
>Those who subscribe to it are "humanists", but
> most "humanists" have never heard of the Manifesto. The Manifesto
> reflects a secular humanist point of view, but because it represents a
> creed, some claim that this form of secular humanism is a Godless
> religion.
> Religious extremists have taken to calling every atheist or humanist
> or "liberal" a "secular humanist", and have claimed that they are
> promoting the creed of "secular humanism" reflected in the Humanist
> Manifesto.
Perhaps you have seen my post of last evening on this subject. Perhaps
you have read about LaHaye's book or seen the video which the Council for
Secular Humanism has provided in answer to LaHaye & Jenkins? It is
available from the Council.
> This ignores the facts that most humanists don't know or
> subscribe to this creed, and that most humanists and "liberals" follow
> a religious of the supernatural-accepting variety.
> As such, millions of people are tarred with the label of a creed that
> few of them would accept, and the resulting stereotype is used to
> attack modern liberalism.
Thank you for your lucid and quitable (as usual) synopsis of the matter.
Ike Milligan
Jesus freaks of the "Communist Manifesto", a pernicious document if there
ever was one.