Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

History Reconstuctionist Revealed

17 views
Skip to first unread message

cody...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months
I naively did not understand the underlying cause of this conflict. I
only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.

Fortunately, Mr. Jeff Sinclair's postings (listed below) helped me to
now understand. This group is not debating history details to improve
their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.
Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
Christian control. Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?" The
danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
took so much care to prevent.

Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
having broad general interests in colonial American history.

Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:

>]Message-ID: <85br7b$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 1 11:37 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br7l$fmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 2 11:37 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br82$fmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 3 11:38 PM
>]Message-ID: <85br8c$fmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 4 11:38 PM

These postings may be found under a thread entitled
"The Founders Were Deists? (Part II)" started 1/8/2000 at:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism

I will appreciate an experienced subscriber converting the above
message ID's to URL addresses for easier access by readers.

Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
(with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
URL. By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
will be better informed.


mscu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
In article <387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,
cody...@yahoo.com wrote:

[snip]

> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM.

Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In
the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree. I would call on
Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial
society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion. Discussion
is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to
historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-history
and pseudo-science.

> If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.

Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
Massachusetts-Bay.

I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.

[snip]

> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the
> URL.

What news reader are you using?

--
Mike Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Jim Elbrecht

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
GMT, cody...@yahoo.com wrote:

>When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
>name for this bunch)

I think you're too kind.

-snip-


> I
>only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
>NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
>threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.

Both sides have already managed to alienate me since they seem to
dominate soc.history.war.us-revolution , now, too.

I've been just using my killfiles to kill them off by thread as they
appear. It makes s-h-w-u look a little quiet, but my blood pressure
is lower.

I've even considered upgrading to W98 just so I can utilize a utility
which will actually kill them off by crossposted newsgroup.
[ Hamster is the utility, it works with Forte's 32bit Agent]

With his utility, they can use whatever subject line or email address
they want-- but if they crosspost to a religious group I'll be spared.

I doubt I'd ever miss an interesting post.

jim

Richard A. Schulman

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
<cody...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cody Ann, is that you?

>...This group is not debating history details to improve


> their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
> struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
> reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
> 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
> which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.

Nor is Mr. Gardiner's position so unnuanced. He certainly has not presented
Franklin and Jefferson as have been orthodox Christians. You have
maliciously represented his views.

> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
> Christian control.

Rick Gardiner has offended a wolf pack of left-liberal secularists --
including, obviously, yourself -- who are the real revisionists. His posts
have not been part of a Christian Right agenda. He's a historian who's had
much of interest to say and who has created a useful Web site -- more than I
can say for his opponents. The wolf-pack has been drowning four newsgroups,
including the one I participate in (soc.history.war.us-revolution) in
diatribe, name-calling, repetitious multikilobyte cut-and-pasting, featuring
a minimum of solid historical scholarship or even wit. I've stopped reading
most of this crap (I'm referring to Sinclair and Curtis, principally).

You, Cody, aren't performing a useful service by setting up your own
gratuitous howling. Take your polemic against the Christian Right elsewhere.
It's off topic in alt.history.colonial and soc.history.war.us-revolution.

> Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM.

ROTFL. Cody, please explain your qualifications and contributions to the
field of American colonial history. Incidentally, I haven't done the
research on this in Deja Vu, but I'll stick my neck out and bet you that the
cross-postings to sci.skeptic and alt.deism were the work of Mr. Gardiner's
opponents, not himself.
--
Richard Schulman
(for email reply, remove the anti-spamming 'XYZ')

BillyTCox

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
I too find their posting, cross posting, quoting each other ad infinitum,
etc., extremely tiresome.

I keep updating filters to my preferences for this board, but they change
subject lines words and so continue to slip in.

Sometimes, I wish that this board was monitored and directed so we wouldn't be
subjected to such hair-splitting and arcane rants.

Their discussions would best be conducted by e-mail between themselves, but
they are obviously to boorish to do this, and subsequently subject those of us
truly interest in discussions of topics germane to this site.

The entire subject of their ranting has been explored, especially since none of
them wish to do anything more than nit-pick others opinions.

>Jim Elbrecht elbr...@mindspring.com
>Date: 1/13/2000 1:31 PM Central
(snip)

William T. Cox

Dan Cyr

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
Thanks. As a lurker for the past few days, reading the many posts for the
past year, I have been at times totally confused as to what was even being
argued, let alone why. I was amazed to see the many posts on this subject,
both for and against on this ng, as well as others (virtually identical at
that).

Frankly, other than to attempt to mislead others, this argument has no where
to go. Lets return to the subject of this ng, and discuss the US revolution
(1st), and colonial history in general.

Dan Cyr

cody...@yahoo.com wrote:

<<large snip>>


Rick Gardiner

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to

I never knew that sci.skeptic even existed until someone else crossposted to
that group. I'm quite sure that Robert Johnson is the source of the alt.deism
post, although I would agree that most of the subject matter of the discussion
is appropriate for a deism group.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Rick Gardiner

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,
> cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> > his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for

> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> > SPAM.
>
> Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In
> the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
> arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree.

It seems that Curtis and Alison have at least read enough of the likes of
Locke, Madison, and Jefferson to at least appreciate the freedoms that they championed.

Yes, we see here who "talks" about the emphasis of the american
revolutionaries' commitment to liberty of conscience and freedom of speech,
and who actually embraces these principles in practice.

Second, Cody's pigeon-holing me as a "reconstructionist" demonstrates that he
doesn't know me very well. The few reconstructionists whom I have come across
in this world have rejected me as a communist liberal.

> Discussion
> is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
> are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
> history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
> David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
> since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
> history.

Mike, this is a misrepresentation. The first time this issue came up was in
alt.atheism. It was an entirely different issue and different discussion. Go
back and check the records. What you are talking about had to do with the
claim that an atheist had made in alt.atheism that hitler was a Christian. I
responded with http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/hitler.html
which relies heavily on the Table Talk (which many scholars, one of which is
Irving, says is the best source for understanding Hitlers religion).

> > If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
> > restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for
> > Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> > no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at
> > alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> > having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>
> Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
> being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
> New England without it.

Gosh, Mike, aren't you afraid of being categorized as a right-wing fanatic for
making such a common sense assertion?

> Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
> Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
> having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
> perspective.

That's a fair concern.

> EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
> Massachusetts-Bay.

Should you be accused of seeing religion in fenceposts?

> I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
> Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
> where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
> nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.

Yes, you have, and that is fine by me. I do appreciate your defense of free
speech and your rejection of censorship, although, in truth, I have to wonder
about your motive. I suspect the reason why you don't want me to leave is not
because you enjoy the free exchange of ideas, but rather because you enjoy
insulting me.

That's fine by me too. You are a moody, but loveable fellow. You've said many
things which I think are unconscionable, and you've said a few very good
things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
deism out as the root of the DOI).

Well, I don't intend to go too far. Cody and the other discontents can learn
to operate his mail filter the same way I have learned to operate mine.

Thanks.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Rick Gardiner

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
> Christian control.

What in the world are you talking about? The last thing I would want is for
any religious institution to have "control" of the civil government. That is
entirely in opposition to the will of the founders. The United States of
America does not and should not have an established religion.

> Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?"

Some might say that, but I sure wouldn't. A good number of the founders of the
U.S. did not have very high moral standards.

> The
> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
> took so much care to prevent.

Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.
Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.

I'll probably do a write in vote for Ted Koppel.

> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being

> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should


> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group.

My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.

> I call for
> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> no purpose for those who battle against him.

Supporters? LOL.

If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.

Do you remember a guy named Stevens who posted in here for a few weeks?? He
was a recruit from alt.jewish. Who do you think lured Sinclair into this
group? His initial introduction to this group was a series of posts about the
Ancient Israelites--entirely off subject for this group.

Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
part of their signature? and one who claimed to be the president of
Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
of the leftist ideologues?

There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in
colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
(occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
political axe.

I would be curious to know what you think colonial america was all about?

> The resulting space at
> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.

You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
of his hard drive on this server.

> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:

I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
respectable, then by all means enjoy.

> By following these links and from exploring other web-links for
> Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
> agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
> will be better informed.

Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.

I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.

Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
academicians. So what?

Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
Princeton liked my book. So what?

As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
superficial assessment of me and my "position."

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Mike Curtis

unread,
Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00
to
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:


>> I do not think these aspects should be shunted aside. I also think that
>> Mr. Gardiner needs to understand the perspective and place emphasis
>> where it belongs. That he does not do so is why I consider him to be
>> nothing more than a propagandist and have told him so.
>
>Yes, you have, and that is fine by me. I do appreciate your defense of free
>speech and your rejection of censorship, although, in truth, I have to wonder
>about your motive. I suspect the reason why you don't want me to leave is not
>because you enjoy the free exchange of ideas, but rather because you enjoy
>insulting me.

1. Gardiner, very few of my posts are insults to you.
2. You can go or stay of your own free will and I don't care which
choice you make.

>That's fine by me too. You are a moody, but loveable fellow. You've said many
>things which I think are unconscionable, and you've said a few very good
>things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
>1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
>deism out as the root of the DOI).

With the exception that Jefferson was in vast agreement with Hutcheson
who was a deist. Having said that we must bear in mind that the DoI is
a lengthy document and isn't simply deist, christian or exclusively
anything else.

Mike Curtis

Richard Tree

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
<cody...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us...
<snip>

I disagree with your conclusion most emphatically. Although I wish some of
the content in the posts were more substantive and less focused on the
finger pointing, I have learned an enormous amount. I think Mr. Gardiner
tries to answer objectively; however, we are all predisposed to argue our
side based on our beliefs -- you have just demonstrated this yourself.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Gardiner.

You can not defend a position that Christianity was *not* a dominant
influence in Colonial America. To do so is to deny history. You can argue,
influentially, that the founders disagreed with various elements of
Christianity. People that claim to be Christians today do the same thing --
and a future critique of our religious makeup will undoubtedly categorize
people contrary to what they really believe.

That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
America.

R/
Richard


buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:| and you've said a few very good


>:|things (the latest of which is that American deism didn't exist until the late
>:|1790's and had nothing to do with Paine; which, logically, rules American
>:|deism out as the root of the DOI).

On Thursday, 4 July 1776, the Declaration was read, and agreed to.
hy Congress:

We hold these truths to be selfevident; that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -- That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriv
ing their power from the consent of the governed . . .

The words are Jefferson's, the sentiments those of men who had dared
to turn the world upside-down: of Rainborough and Winstanley, of Locke,
Voltaire, Rousseau and Thomas Paine. Forty years on, William Cobbett
asserted that, whoever wrote the Declaration, its author was the Thet-
ford Quaker -- though, on that Thursday morning of 1776, he was two
days' journey from Philadelphia, serving with Washington's army on the
approaches to New York.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
"Richard Tree" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>:|<cody...@yahoo.com> wrote in message


>:|news:387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us...
>:|<snip>
>:|
>:|I disagree with your conclusion most emphatically. Although I wish some of
>:|the content in the posts were more substantive and less focused on the
>:|finger pointing, I have learned an enormous amount. I think Mr. Gardiner
>:|tries to answer objectively; however, we are all predisposed to argue our
>:|side based on our beliefs -- you have just demonstrated this yourself.
>:|Personally, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Gardiner.
>:|
>:|You can not defend a position that Christianity was *not* a dominant
>:|influence in Colonial America. To do so is to deny history. You can argue,
>:|influentially, that the founders disagreed with various elements of
>:|Christianity. People that claim to be Christians today do the same thing --
>:|and a future critique of our religious makeup will undoubtedly categorize
>:|people contrary to what they really believe.


I have to wonder if you have understood the argument, then

The argument has never been to try and show or claim that religion was not
a influence, nor even a dominate one.
The arguments have been addressing gardiner's claims that Religion (meaning
Protestant Christianity) was THE MOSt IMPORTANT INFLUENCE.

It simply was not the most important influence.

Numerous people, myself included have presented a vast amount of documented
historical information, from a wide variety of sources over the l;ast 10
months supporting our claims that it was not the most important influence.

Do you understand that among the various things that Gardiner has claimed
or implied is:
The real founders of American were not the founding fathers, but rather
were Luther and Calvin?
Most if not all of the institutions of this country were founded, created
or established in New England, and are based in some form on Luther and
Calvin? (the rest of what was to become America was peopled by uneducated
backwoods bumpkins, basically)
That New England was more then half of the country
That when asked to show the religious evidence in the Constitution stated
that the whole idea of a **federal** constitution, **federal** government,
etc was based on Religion because the word federal means compact with God.

The list goes on. What gardier has posted over the past ten months does
show a person who is in love with the New England that may have once
existed, blindly so, perhaps, and has a tunnel vision regarding certain men
of history and events of history.
It isn';t to be nasty or mean that people say Gardiner sees religion, or
Calvin or Luther, etc in fence posts.

As was posted today by Jeff Sinclair

=============================================================
Gardiner is strangely silent about religious intolerance by Puritans
and Calvinists groups. He did the same thing when he claimed that 3/4
of the ideas in the Bill of Rights came from “the ideas embedded in the
1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came
complete with Bible verses attached to each of the rights” he then
added that “(Conference participants
gasped in horror when they realized that for their cherished liberties
they were indebted to the hated Puritans, folks they considered
repressive, religious zealots.)” He also did this with the “Vidiciae
Contra Tyrannos: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” of 1579 which
was also formulated by (you guessed it) Calvinists. And so on. He
virtually ignores the English Constitution of 1689 (not quite of
course; this he merely says was _influenced_ by Calvinists), the
influence of Whig political thought (which he traces back to, you got
it, the Puritan Calvinists in England), and the corruption of the
British crown in influencing government by colonial governors and
legislatures (but, he says the motivations of the Colonists for adding
checks and balances to control this was based on, you got it, Calvinist
pessimism).
When it is mentioned to him that the New England Puritans built up a de
facto religious theonomy, and that the history of the Calvinists as
they influenced governments was that of some of the most intolerant in
history, Gardiner either ignores this, attacks the scholar as not
being “the final authority” on these matters (such as Gordon Wood and
Bernard Bailyn who won recognition from their fellow historians for
their work ), or just simply enters into a straight out personal attack
on the person posting.
============================================================


If his case is so good, why does he have this need to misrepresent the
facts so consistently and turn blind eyes to all the facts that do not
support his claims?

He has made some pretty strong claims about James Madison over the past ten
months. I took the time and effort to take most of those claims and
research them. The result has been a set of approx 35 posts refuting those
claims. Refuting them with evidence and commentary produced by scholars
that are experts on Madison.

What has been the result? He has elected to go into his ignoring mode of
operations. But, rest assured, you will se gardiner making the same claims
about Madison he has made all along, in the future.

You can side with him if you want, you asked me about some things and I
provided you with information that answered your question. You then stated
you were casting your lot with Gardiner. That's kewl but do know the man
you have decided to cast your lot with, do know what he is really saying.

One further item:
If religion was the most important influence back then,
why is it that beginning almost at once,
with the very first state constitutions written in 1776
and continuing with each additional state constitution revision,
and with the federal constitution
all the various alliances, unions, etc between religion and government that
had been present in all those original charters
Gardiner likes to talk about and mention
were eliminated, repealed, done away with
and in a period of approx 171
we went from what was written in those various charters to

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.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and
State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
{Everson v Bd of Ed 1947]

From required attendance in church, to required support of religion, to
required public worship, to blasphemy laws to Sunday laws, to required
prayer and Bible reading in schools, etc to the above

That didn't happen by accident, it didn't happen without the willingness
and blessing of the people, during that approx 171 year period of time.


There were four possibly five major influences working together, sometimes
at odds even, that played a role in the creation of this nation. All were
important, and no one single one was THE MOST INFLUENTIAL

>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right


>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>:|America.

>:|


Secular Humanist?

Care to elaborate?

The reference to such does give a bit of a handle on where you are coming
from and does give some explanation why you tend to side with Gardiner.

buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.


>:|Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
>:|somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.

>:|


Gardiner is having an argument with himself again.

Wonder which side of his personality is going to win this one..

The poster gardiner gives far too much credit to me, and others he claims
are like me, and seems to devalue the intelligence of all others.

He doesn't seem to understand that it is his own words that define him, not
what I or anyone else, including those who agree with him might say.

He doesn't seem to understand that his connection to and with his
co-author, and especially when he has claimed to call this co-author on
several occasion to get information for his arguments says a few things
about him.

There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
that person well within the framework of the far religious right.

No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.

>:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and


>:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
>:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.


if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out beyond
that period in his posting.

>:|
>:|> I call for


>:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>:|
>:|Supporters? LOL.
>:|
>:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.


Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?

In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
frequent the history NGs

>:|
>:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>:|part of their signature?


How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
you?

Do you think it is impossible for others to drop in by themselves.
Do you think it is impossible for others to have a variety of interests?
I have been surprised at finding people in various NGs. I found a guy in
the WWII NG that is also in the Cleveland Browns NGs which I frequent.


>:|and one who claimed to be the president of


>:|Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
>:|you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
>:|think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
>:|of the leftist ideologues?


Leftist ideologies?

How interesting, you claim innocence to rightist ideologies yet make
unproven clams about leftist ideologies of others. In short, you are guilty
of the very thing you claim others are guilty of regarding you. How
interesting. LOL

Nice demonstration of your own biases.

Just to set the record straight, until you confine your posts to one NG you
are also reaching out to people in other NGs to read what you post, wanting
people to read what you want, so remember, as you point the finger at other
at least three fingers point back at you.

I have seen times back in the spring and early summer when you had begun a
thread and you had 5-6-7 or more NGs listed in the heading. There were
times I would respond and delete one or two, only to find you had added
them back when you responded.

So get off your self-rightous soapbox, all you accuse others of you have
done at some time or other as well.

>:|
>:|There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in


>:|colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
>:|appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
>:|(occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
>:|discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
>:|political axe.

Well, as I recall, I ran across your first post in alt politics usa
constitution.

I have no idea who put it there.

I really don't care what NG it might be in, I have been posting to your
inaccurate information that you have been posting. One can go back and
review that history to find that you have sure done enough posting back to
me and others that go past the 1600 to 1776 periods of time.

>:|
>:|You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.


>:|Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>:|You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>:|of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>:|of his hard drive on this server.

LOL the entire contents of my hard drive?

Hardly, not even close


I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
pretty interesting)


>:|
>:|> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff


>:|> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
>:|> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
>:|> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
>:|> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>:|
>:|I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
>:|decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
>:|immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
>:|respectable, then by all means enjoy.

As if you are the perfect model of proper behavior.

Fact is, the man trashes you, i. e. meets insult from you with insult, and
posted argument and evidence that sets each of your claims in their proper
context, thus properly altering your incorrect/overstatement, or offering
data that shows yours to be completely incorrect.

But Cody provided you the opportunity to review what he (Jeff) had to say
about your claims, what he provided from the web regarding Amos and his
book and his associations with certain far right groups, etc.

All you have to do is click on each of those message numbers.


it is interesting that this is the first guy I know of you have "killfiled"
Wonder what the real reason is

You had a bit of an advantage in the past in that only Mike and myself
argued against you. Now I don't have the interest or knowledge regarding
European History and whole Mike was better versed in that, but his
interest and area of knowledge was more the colonial Mass and N E .
Therefore we weren't able to dissect some of your arguments and correct
them as well as we would have liked to

But wonder of wonders, some one who knows these areas well enough to show
the various flaws in your arguments and your facts show up and you kill
file them, LOL how interesting..

Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode well for
you, does it? :o)


>:|
>:|Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am


>:|in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
>:|affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
>:|wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
>:|
>:|I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
>:|
>:|Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
>:|academicians. So what?
>:|
>:|Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
>:|Princeton liked my book. So what?
>:|
>:|As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
>:|superficial assessment of me and my "position."

>:|


(1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything anyone
else has ever said about you.

(2) who endorses your book defines your position.

(3) your co-author defines your position

I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of step with
what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form about your
position based on the three things above.

Kenneth Childress

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In article <ne8u7s0la9s5f2pi5...@4ax.com>,
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>"Richard Tree" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:

[...]

>>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right
>>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>>:|America.
>
>Secular Humanist?

Religious Right?

>Care to elaborate?

Why don't you elaborate on the definition of relgious right? You like
to throw it about frequently.

>The reference to such does give a bit of a handle on where you are coming
>from and does give some explanation why you tend to side with Gardiner.

Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle black again and looking like a hypocrit.


--

Kenneth Childress

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In article <b8eu7s8v9i122j16j...@4ax.com>,
<buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

[...]

>>:|> I call for
>>:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>>:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>>:|
>>:|Supporters? LOL.
>>:|
>>:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>>:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>>:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
>
>Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?

Getting some amusement. Are you implying Mr. Gardiner alerted me to
your antics in this hideaway?

>In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
>frequent the history NGs

So? You know little about me.

>>:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
>>:|part of their signature?
>
>How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
>you?
>
>Do you think it is impossible for others to drop in by themselves.
>Do you think it is impossible for others to have a variety of interests?

Maybe the same is true of those who side more with Mr. Gardiner than
they do you. Ever think of that?

Maybe if you would answer your own questions in light of your actions
you'd look a trifle less silly when you do post.


[...]

--

Henry Bariteau III

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the Pilgrims) overt
Christians???

cody...@yahoo.com wrote:

> When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my

> name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
> to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
> whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
> factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months

> I naively did not understand the underlying cause of this conflict. I


> only felt indignation from such a group being able to invade several
> NG's, including alt.history.colonial, where content of their many long
> threads is SPAM, being off-topic and excessively crossposted.
>

> Fortunately, Mr. Jeff Sinclair's postings (listed below) helped me to

> now understand. This group is not debating history details to improve


> their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
> struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
> reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
> 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
> which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.

> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'

> Christian control. Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't
> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?" The


> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
> took so much care to prevent.
>

> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should

> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group. I call for


> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving

> no purpose for those who battle against him. The resulting space at


> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>

> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff
> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>

> >]Message-ID: <85br7b$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 1 11:37 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br7l$fmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 2 11:37 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br82$fmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 3 11:38 PM
> >]Message-ID: <85br8c$fmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Part 4 11:38 PM
>
> These postings may be found under a thread entitled
> "The Founders Were Deists? (Part II)" started 1/8/2000 at:
> soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
>
> I will appreciate an experienced subscriber converting the above
> message ID's to URL addresses for easier access by readers.
>

> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line
> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the

> URL. By following these links and from exploring other web-links for

Richard Tree

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
Mr. Allison;

>
>I have to wonder if you have understood the argument, then
>

Thank you for addressing my response. I would like to think I
understand the argument, however, it is possible that I do not have a
full grasp. Particularly since I came to this NG in the middle of the
debate.

I am a man of faith. I have a deep love of Christ and the Church.
However, I too *do not* believe that Christianity was the most
important influence -- directly. I simply view the most important
influence was the desire for liberty. But, I am inclined to believe
that Christianity -- Protestant Christianity to a large degree --
shaped the fundamental views of Liberty. Perhaps this is "splitting
hairs"

So when I see Mr. Gardiner argue a position, I see a person that
attempts to argue that Christian beliefs and Church influence shaped a
person's thoughts. When you argue, I see a position that all but
eliminates religious influence in the thought. However, I also learn
a great deal from your references and views regarding the construction
of government. Nevertheless, as you have said, the argument is not
that religion was a dominant influence but whether it was the most
important one. I consider it to be the most important, but not in as
obvious a manner.

>Secular Humanist?

Secular -- Worldly rather than spiritual.

Humanist -- One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of
human beings.

In other words: One that denies a spiritual influence that is
concerned with the welfare of human beings.

In my humble and not as well learned opinion, all founders were
influenced by Christianity -- whether they knew it or not.

R/
Richard

dr...@panix.com

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In soc.history.war.us-revolution cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
> When first encountering the religion-in-history group last year (my
> name for this bunch) I was amazed that grown men and women find time
> to argue about colonial American history details, especially as to
> whether religion in the colonies was 'a' factor or 'the overwhelming'
> factor behind the founders of these United States. For several months

Here's an easy way to cut down on the noise:

killfiel any thread with the word deis* in it.

Very simple. Filters out 99% of the crap, and retains the
interesting stuff.


Andrew


mscu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
In article <387F5C24...@sprintmail.com>,

Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the
Pilgrims) overt
> Christians???

They were Brownists and admitted seperatists. They also came here from
Holland where there was religious freedom. The majority of those coming
over on the Mayflower were "adventurers." Some were servants. Most all
were farmers. The reasons for leaving Holland can be found in William
Bradford's History.

The Puritans of 1630 came here for mostly religious reasons but they
claimed to not be spearating from the Church of England.

Plymouth and Massachusetts-Bay were at odds with each other more often
than not.

Just because those settling here happen to be from Western Europe and
mostly Christians is a no-brainer. However, saying that says nothing
for the reasons people came here.

buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:

>:|Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the Pilgrims) overt
>:|Christians???


Original settlers?

Hmmmmm, well what are now called native Americans were here before the
pilgrims, and they settled parts of the country.
In fact, they did a pretty good job in some areas, so good a job that some
have even stated that there is some strong evidence that some of the ideas
that were being lived out among the eastern Indians nations actually might
have made their way into our Constitution.

You see, there were several indian nations living in harmony in a sort of
confederacy in the east, and actually practiced forms of democracy and
maybe even a tad bit republicanism too.

A settlement was estqablished on Roanoke Island off the Coast of North
Carolina in 1587, but ultimately became famous for becoming the lost colony
of Roanoke (though in the last few years some additional information has
been uncovered pertaining to this colony and its people's fate.)

Along about 1607 Jamestown was established here in Virginia and thus began
the settlement of Virginia. (this is all very generalized and not detailed,
things didn't always go smoothly etc., but it was the beginning of the
settlement of North American by the white man.)

I think you will find that your Pilgrims didn't arrive in North America
until about 1620. By 1624 Virginia was firmly established and beginning to
prosper.

The Pilgrims were not really the original settlers. The original white
settlers of New England perhaps, but not of North America.

As far as being religious, yep, spect they qualify in that department,. but
it was more along the lines of religious freedom for them, not for all.

Gardiner

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <387F5C24...@sprintmail.com>,

> Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the
> Pilgrims) overt
> > Christians???
>
> They were Brownists and admitted seperatists. They also came here from
> Holland where there was religious freedom. The majority of those coming
> over on the Mayflower were "adventurers." Some were servants. Most all
> were farmers. The reasons for leaving Holland can be found in William
> Bradford's History.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Now let's look at a piece of Bradford's history in this regard:

"a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at
least to make some way hereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of
the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea, though they
should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so great
a work.

These and some other like reasons moved them to undertake this resolution of
their removal; the which they afterward prosecuted with so great difficulties,
as by the sequel will appear."

> The Puritans of 1630 came here for mostly religious reasons

Yes indeed.

> Plymouth and Massachusetts-Bay were at odds with each other more often
> than not.

Evidence?

> Just because those settling here happen to be from Western Europe and
> mostly Christians is a no-brainer. However, saying that says nothing
> for the reasons people came here.

Perhaps it make sense to accept what these men said about "the reasons they came
here:"

"We all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim,
namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the
liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace"

Source: http://www.universitylake.org/history/1643.html

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Gardiner

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Henry Bariteau III <h...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >:|Were not the original settlers of this country, (that is the Pilgrims) overt
> >:|Christians???
>
> The Pilgrims were not really the original settlers. The original white
> settlers of New England perhaps, but not of North America.
>
> As far as being religious, yep, spect they qualify in that department,. but
> it was more along the lines of religious freedom for them, not for all.

Mr. Bariteau has the intuitive sentiments of the American founders such as
Samuel Adams. Alison has the sentiments of a typical frustrated 20th century
revisionist.

One of the more prominent signers of the Declaration spoke of the American
Revolutionary cause with reference to these "pilgrims," and his assessment of
their view of liberty is quite at odds with Alison's view. From Adams' view the
revolutionary conflict revolved around--

"the danger we are in, of the utter loss of those religious Rights, the
enjoyment of which our good forefathers had more especially in their intention,
when they explored and settled."

(S. Adams, Boston Gazette, April 4, 1768).

Adams said of the relationship of the revolutionaries to the first New England
settlers:

"We are the Descendants of Ancestors remarkable for their Zeal for true Religion
& Liberty: When they found it was no longer possible for them to bear any Part
in the Support of this glorious Cause in their Native Country England, they
transplanted themselves at their own very great Expence, into the Wilds of
America... this new world."

(Adams, Writings, I., p. 27).

Gardiner

unread,
Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00
to
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> He doesn't seem to understand that his connection to and with his
> co-author, and especially when he has claimed to call this co-author on
> several occasion to get information for his arguments says a few things
> about him.

I called Amos about Gary Wills' critique of a footnote buried in the back of his
book, DEFENDING THE DECLARATION. I wanted to know if he was aware of it since it
was an argument which Curtis was leveling against Amos. I was not surprised to
find that Amos was quite aware of it, and also quite aware that Wills was dead
wrong on the publication date of Jefferson's "The Philosophy of Jesus."

I've never called Amos "to get information for my arguments." Perhaps I should
do as you do and tell you where to blow it.

Na. The vulgarities are your department. Or is that Sinclair's dept.

> There is information on the web about this co-authoir that very much places
> that person well within the framework of the far religious right.

There is information on the web that places Alison within the framework of the
Wiccan Pagan cult. (http://members.aol.com/Talendear/whoidx.html)

> No one has to explain Gardiner to anyone else, he does it all by himself.

Alison is unquestionably associated with American Atheists
http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt

> >:|My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
> >:|revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
> >:|"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.
>
> if the above was so true, then I wonder why he frequently moves out beyond
> that period in his posting.

If that happens, it is usually in response to someone else bringing up a modern
Supreme Ct. case or something (like you have done frequently in alt.colonial)

> >:|> I call for
> >:|> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
> >:|> no purpose for those who battle against him.
> >:|
> >:|Supporters? LOL.
> >:|
> >:|If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
> >:|colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
> >:|record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.
>
> Really? Hmmmmmm, what is your defender Childress doing here?
>
> In the five years I have run into him on the net I have never known him to
> frequent the history NGs

You'll have to ask him why he is here. Two things are absolutely a fact: 1)
Childress was definitely not contacted by me to come post in alt.colonial, quite
frankly, I have no clue as to how he came across these threads, and 2) Childress
has been rather "unsupportive" of me in some respects (e.g., abrasive tactics),
which is a quite different and respectable posture than one sees coming from the
ideological leftists.

> >:|Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as
> >:|part of their signature?
>
> How many? Who? What does that mean and how does that alter anything about
> you?

Well, in the last two weeks we've had Jeff, Nash, and Pastor Stevo. In the past
we've been blessed with the occasional trolling of Maff91 and his ilk.

What it means is that the attacks on an honest history which acknowledges the
centrality of religion in early America are largely rooted in an antagonistic
disposition to religion in general. It is not a balanced critique.

> I haven't even hit you with the 1400 or 1500 pages of material I have on it
> involved in my project.. Actually, some of it does get into the colonial
> period, and it is 99.9% historical documents, very little, next to no
> commentary. And no, it isn't a bunch of URLs to other sites for documents,
> it is the real Mccoy (BTW u ever hear the story behind that phrase? its
> pretty interesting)

IIRC it had to do with smuggling liquor during Prohibition. Now who is "posting"
outside of the parameters of 1600-1800?

> Kill file just means they get to make their arguments and you don't
> respond. Therefore, any readers only get their side. Doesn't bode well for
> you, does it? :o)

I followed your lead in this regard:

On 12/27/99, ALISON WROTE:

"To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read his
posts/replies. I delete them."

I guess Schulman's incisive remarks were just too much for you. Doesn't bode


well for you, does it? :o)

> >:|Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
> >:|in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
> >:|affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
> >:|wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.
> >:|
> >:|I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.
> >:|
> >:|Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
> >:|academicians. So what?
> >:|
> >:|Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
> >:|Princeton liked my book. So what?
> >:|
> >:|As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
> >:|superficial assessment of me and my "position."
> >:|
>
> (1) Your arguments define your position far better then anything anyone
> else has ever said about you.

This is very true.

> (2) who endorses your book defines your position.

The group that you call "we" defines your position (WICCANS)?

> (3) your co-author defines your position

Those who endorse your writing defines your position
(http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/~aiken/separat.txt)

> I haven't seen anything in ten months, from you, that are out of step with
> what conclusions reasonable people could and probably would form about your
> position based on the three things above.

I haven't seen anything from you in ten months that is out of step with Wiccans,
Atheists, and other radical groups who claim you.

RG

Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to

Thanks for the tips regarding your plans to use killfiles.
Personally, I think I'll hang on for awhile. I'm more of a pragmatist
than acedemic and won't have scholarly contributions -- but now that I
understand the ideological struggle that's going here I find it rather
interesting. A positive for this group is their presentation of many
historical documents that I probably would not have read in detail
otherwise. However, I still believe that Gardiner's propaganda is
off-topic in the sense that its obvious purpose is to further
Protestant Religious Right (extremist) interests of politico-religious
nature, therefore being a political/religion topic -- having nothing
to do with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of
American colonial history or the Revolutionary War.

I add 'extremist' above to recognize that many supporters of Religious
Right causes undoubtedly are unaware of behind-the-scenes activities
to reconstruct history, or are unaware of the dangers to American
freedom that could result from such endeavors. I lean to the right on
many issues myself but was appalled to recently learn of such
so-called 'stealth' activities by the extremists. (Re: info from
postings by Jeff Sinclair listed in my intital article of this
thread.)

So...I must apoligize for following Gardiner's lead in being off-topic
and crossposting until his decision to quit or leave the history NG's.
But please note that I restricted my posting to 'only' four NG's, far
less than Gardiner's. Crossposting to more than four NG's is SPAM per
Usenet rules, Re: Deja.com web page, where the 'four' pertains to a
'need,' not meant to be routinely abused.

Nathan McClean (cody...@yahoo.com)

Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:03:25 GMT, mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:

[snip]

>]Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In


>]the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his

>]arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree. I would call on


>]Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial

>]society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion. Discussion


>]is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's arguments
>]are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
>]history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to use
>]David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
>]since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial

>]history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to


>]historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
>]relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-history
>]and pseudo-science.

My intent is not to censor, it is to challenge him to leave the
history NG's voluntarily. Some might say this is a type of censorship
but I say that Gardiner's propaganda is off-topic in the sense that


its obvious purpose is to further Protestant Religious Right
(extremist) interests of politico-religious nature, therefore being a

political/religion newsgroup topic -- his propaganda has nothing to do


with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of American

colonial history including the American Revolutionary War. Followers
and contesters of Gardiner subscribe to the history NG's primarily
because he does.

As to SPAM this is also defined as crossposting an article or response
to more than four newsgroups regardless of the discussion or response
content, with 'four' being based on an occasional 'need,' not to be
constantly abused. Re: Deja.com web page.

I posted to two history NG's along with two others only to follow
Gardiner's lead, I'm not prould of it. To further demonstrate
SPAMMING within the religion-topic group, RL Johnson posted an article
on 1/3/2000 *only* to the alt.history.colonial NG. Gardiner's
immediate 'response' went out to seven (7) different NG's under a new
title, see Message-ID: <387179E2...@pitnet.net> . Gardiner then
used the same posting by Johnson to start yet another thread on
1/11/2000, sending it out to two history NG's which had already been
recipients of his first 'response.' Re: Message-ID:
<387C1666...@pitnet.net>

This again demonstrates that Gardiner is more interested in spreading
his propaganda tale to as large an audience that he thinks he can get
away with -- rather than being truly interested in contributing to a
particular topic.

[snip]

>]Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there


>]being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial

>]New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,


>]Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
>]having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and

>]perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
>]Massachusetts-Bay.

Some if not many threads by this group have gone far afield of
colonial American history topics: ancient Hebrew history, biblical
interpretations and dogs being a few I recall off hand. Religion (and
politics) can be read into many topics, religion is the entire world
to some people, but I don't believe this makes it right or courteous
of Mr. Gardiner to overwhelm the colonial history and US Rev War
newsgroups with obiously religion-only topics when there are religion
or other applicable newsgroups available.

[snip]

>]> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff


>]> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
>]> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second line

>]> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access the


>]> URL.
>]
>]What news reader are you using?

I'm using Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243. Any advice will be
appreciated.

Nathan (cody...@yahoo.com)


Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:38:06 -0600, Rick Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>]mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>]>
>]> In article <387bcd09...@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,
>]> cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>]>
>]> [snip]

>]>
>]> > Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon


>]> > his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
>]> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> > SPAM.

>]>
>]> Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In


>]> the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
>]> arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree.

>]
>]It seems that Curtis and Alison have at least read enough of the likes of


>]Locke, Madison, and Jefferson to at least appreciate the freedoms that they championed.
>]
>]Yes, we see here who "talks" about the emphasis of the american
>]revolutionaries' commitment to liberty of conscience and freedom of speech,
>]and who actually embraces these principles in practice.

I may not be your scholarly type but your inferring that I don't
appreciate my country's freedom is trashy on your part, typical of
your reaction to anyone who does not agree with you.
>]
>]Second, Cody's pigeon-holing me as a "reconstructionist" demonstrates that he


>]doesn't know me very well. The few reconstructionists whom I have come across
>]in this world have rejected me as a communist liberal.

Mr. Gardiner, I know plenty about your beliefs and characteristics
from reading your many, many postings. An attempt to disguise your
pigeon-hole is noted.

[snip, not addressed to me.]

>]
>]Well, I don't intend to go too far. Cody and the other discontents can learn


>]to operate his mail filter the same way I have learned to operate mine.
>]
>]Thanks.
>]
>]RG

Mr. Gardiner, I don't believe I should have to learn 'any' special
techniques so that you may continue with your SPAMMING propanganda. I
note you did not respond to my comments about your many excessively
crossposted SPAMMING threads.

Nathan

Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to

You're welcome, Dan. I too had difficulties until Jeff Sinclair's
postings led me to further investigation. An important matter that I
didn't cover in my posting is that Gardiner has been touting his book
for at least a year, which was *co-authored* by Gary Amos, a law
professor at the Pat Robertson School of Government at Regent
University, supported by Pat Robertson’s organization. From Jeff
Sinclair's postings, Amos is also prominently listed as at least a
sympathizer of a group devoted in part or in whole to tearing down the
wall of separation between church and state.

This establishes the likely tie with Gardiner's reconstructionist
propaganda at our history NG's. Sinclair's postings have much more
info that is interesting to read and learn -- that may lead you to
study other web sites if you have time. I found this study to be very
revealing, I am amazed that such activities are occurring in our
society.

Nathan

On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:29:31 -0600, Dan Cyr <dan...@execpc.com> wrote:

>]Thanks. As a lurker for the past few days, reading the many posts for the

>]


Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:18:31 -0600, Rick Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>]Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>]>
>]> <cody...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>]>
>]> Cody Ann, is that you?

Mr. Schulman's attempt to punish me in a 'superior' sexist manner is
noted. My name was omitted in my initial posting, it is now present.

>]>
>]> >...This group is not debating history details to improve


>]> > their collective knowledge, they are engulfed in an ideological
>]> > struggle to establish whether Mr. Gardiner should be allowed to
>]> > reconstruct history to meet his needs, viz. the founding fathers were
>]> > 'orthodox Christians' with 'religion coursing through their veins' --
>]> > which simply is not supported by the evidence presented.

>]>
>]> Nor is Mr. Gardiner's position so unnuanced. He certainly has not presented


>]> Franklin and Jefferson as have been orthodox Christians. You have
>]> maliciously represented his views.

Not malicious nor misrepresented at all, Mr. Gardiner has said so many
different things in so many different threads in so many different
NG's I'm sure you can cite an instance where what you say is true. I
am responding to the 'bottom line' of his presentations, like in the
bottom line of a financial statement, like in the summary or
conclusion of his presentations, which may or may not be applicable to
a singular instance of the total.

>]>
>]> > Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct


>]> > history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
>]> > Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
>]> > proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
>]> > 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
>]> > voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
>]> > offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
>]> > all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
>]> > Christian control.

>]>
>]> Rick Gardiner has offended a wolf pack of left-liberal secularists --


>]> including, obviously, yourself -- who are the real revisionists. His posts
>]> have not been part of a Christian Right agenda. He's a historian who's had
>]> much of interest to say and who has created a useful Web site -- more than I
>]> can say for his opponents. The wolf-pack has been drowning four newsgroups,
>]> including the one I participate in (soc.history.war.us-revolution) in
>]> diatribe, name-calling, repetitious multikilobyte cut-and-pasting, featuring
>]> a minimum of solid historical scholarship or even wit. I've stopped reading
>]> most of this crap (I'm referring to Sinclair and Curtis, principally).

I agree only with your feelings about Gardiner, his supporters and
contesters 'drowning' the history NG's. My observations indicate
Gardiner and his supporters initiate and conduct the vast majority of
vicious name-calling, especially when that's the only ammunition they
have. What do you do in your first response to me, you say I am
obviously a left-liberal secularist. If you must know, my values and
positions lean to the right on most issues.

>]>
>]> You, Cody, aren't performing a useful service by setting up your own


>]> gratuitous howling. Take your polemic against the Christian Right elsewhere.
>]> It's off topic in alt.history.colonial and soc.history.war.us-revolution.

Gardiner's propaganda is all off-topic at history NG's as I said when
initiating this thread, that's why I'm here.

>]>
>]> > Short of this I call for


>]> > him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> > propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> > SPAM.
>]>

>]> ROTFL. Cody, please explain your qualifications and contributions to the


>]> field of American colonial history. Incidentally, I haven't done the
>]> research on this in Deja Vu, but I'll stick my neck out and bet you that the
>]> cross-postings to sci.skeptic and alt.deism were the work of Mr. Gardiner's
>]> opponents, not himself.

Mr. Schulman, must I be a PhD to qualify, can't anyone participate,
not those who want separation of church and state (religion and
government) continued in our nation, after our founders so carefully
established this principle? I've stated my conerns about the
crossposted SPAMMING within this group elsewhere within this thread.
The example of Gardiner taking one posting to one newsgroup and making
two new threads in his 'responses,' one being sent out to seven
different NG's takes the prize I believe. But let's decide later.

>]> --


>]> Richard Schulman
>]
>]I never knew that sci.skeptic even existed until someone else crossposted to
>]that group. I'm quite sure that Robert Johnson is the source of the alt.deism
>]post, although I would agree that most of the subject matter of the discussion
>]is appropriate for a deism group.
>]
>]RG

Mr. Gardiner, please refer to the above example of your SPAM that is
cited by message ID elsewhere in this thread. I don't agree that
alt.deism is an appropriate group except when you're on deist topics,
I believe the appropriate newsgroup for your interest is one in the
politico-religious arena.

Nathan


Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:34:30 GMT, "Richard Tree"
<rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]

Thank you for your views. I am convinced there is an ideological
struggle here that goes far beyond any academic interest in American
history. I intend to focus on the stuggle.

Nathan

Nathan McClean

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:27:21 -0600, Rick Gardiner
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>]cody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>]>
>]> Coincidentally(?), it seems that Mr. Gardiner's attempt to reconstruct
>]> history falls in step with similar reconstructionist activities by
>]> Christian Right activist groups -- in order for them to (falsely)
>]> proclaim the United States was founded with intentions for it to be a
>]> 'Christian nation'...to justify their manipultation of Christian
>]> voters (and politicians) toward placing their nominees in many elected
>]> offices...in order for the Christian Right to control government at
>]> all levels...thereby 'returning' our nation to its 'intended'
>]> Christian control.
>]
>]What in the world are you talking about? The last thing I would want is for
>]any religious institution to have "control" of the civil government. That is
>]entirely in opposition to the will of the founders. The United States of
>]America does not and should not have an established religion.

Maybe a super-strong influence sounds better? Or, maybe you have
conjured up a new CYA definition for some obscure word in the above,
like you seem to be good at doing? Or maybe you knew absolutely
nothing about the beliefs of your book's co-author and yours are
completely opposite to his?...yeau, right.

>]
>]> Some might say "What's wrong with that, wouldn't


>]> we be better off with more leaders having high moral standards?"
>]
>]Some might say that, but I sure wouldn't. A good number of the founders of the
>]U.S. did not have very high moral standards.

I agree with you on this one.

>]
>]> The


>]> danger is that our United States would be controlled by an intolerant
>]> religious theocracy, the very thing our nation's founders rightfully
>]> took so much care to prevent.
>]
>]Exactly. So where is this great disagreement you think you have with me.
>]Apparently you have been duped by Alison and Sinclair's nonsense that I am
>]somehow in a conspiracy with the 700 club to get Pat Robertson into the White House.

Please re-read my intial posting at this thread. You have also not
responded to the referenced postings by Jeff Sinclair, cited in mine.
These provide the basis for our 'disagreement.' I look forward to
your response.

>]
>]I'll probably do a write in vote for Ted Koppel.


>]
>]> Based on this understanding I call for Mr. Rick Gardiner to abandon
>]> his reconstructionist efforts, he has lost. Short of this I call for
>]> him to leave the alt.history.colonial group and other forums where his
>]> propaganda is off-topic and excessively crossposted, therefore being
>]> SPAM. If he decides to continue my perspective says he should
>]> restrict himself to a political-religion type news-group.
>]
>]My interest is in the socio-cultural milieu of the American colonial and
>]revolutionary periods. If you, Alison, or Sinclair sees in this some
>]"right-wing conspiracy," well, you can keep on fantasizing with Hilary.

Your postings indicate your strongest interests lie in religion
related arenas along with your reconstructionist propaganda.
>]
>]> I call for


>]> Mr. Gardiner to leave since I know his supporters will follow leaving
>]> no purpose for those who battle against him.
>]
>]Supporters? LOL.
>]
>]If you take a studied look at who has been dragging "supporters" into the
>]colonial group who are not primarily interested in colonial history, the
>]record will show that it has been everyone EXCEPT me.

Oh, my, you are the 'only' one? It is obvious to me that both sides
of this conflict have done their homework.

>]
>]Do you remember a guy named Stevens who posted in here for a few weeks?? He


>]was a recruit from alt.jewish. Who do you think lured Sinclair into this
>]group? His initial introduction to this group was a series of posts about the
>]Ancient Israelites--entirely off subject for this group.

I recall there being 'many' off-topic and crossposted SPAMMING
discussions over many months, yours included. In fact, the basis of
yours is only on-topic in a politico-religious arena.

>]
>]Have you ever noticed that a number of posters in here have "atheist #1415" as


>]part of their signature? and one who claimed to be the president of
>]Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas (CLIT). Guess who attracted them to the fray? Do
>]you think they were a natural part of the colonial history group, or do you
>]think it is more likely that they were lured in here with a cross post by one
>]of the leftist ideologues?

I won't fall into your trap and practice of pointing fingers and
name-calling. You seem to have a bad name for anyone who disagrees
with you, and you try to make others who are lurking believe that all
who disagree should fit somewhere in a garbage bag. I'm not an
atheist so please omit that category for me.

>]
>]There are a number of persons in the group who have been interested in


>]colonial history. As much as I think Modacc was erroneos, the conversation was
>]appropriate for colonial history. Mr. Tree, Mr. Schulman, and even Mr. Curtis
>](occasionally), have demonstrated a sincere interest in colonial American
>]discussions. Alison is simply an ideologue who uses the forum to grind his
>]political axe.
>]
>]I would be curious to know what you think colonial america was all about?

Let's stay on-topic in this thread, entitled "History
Reconstructionist Revealed."

>]
>]> The resulting space at


>]> alt.history.colonial, for example, may then be used by subscribers
>]> having broad general interests in colonial American history.
>]
>]You speak as if there is a limited amount of memory on the newsgroup server.
>]Perhaps you need to take a basic course in computer science in this regard.
>]You might be surprised to find out that alt.history.colonial is not in danger
>]of losing all its memory, even in light of Alison dumping the entire contents
>]of his hard drive on this server.

I am concerned about the lack of general-interest postings at the
American history NG's where your many threads have overwhelmed them.
Even Mr. Schulman speaks of this. Most people by far arrive with no
experience with 'busy' newsgroups like sci.skeptic. When they see the
long line of 'religion' threads most leave without even posting a
question or contributing. Most know little or nothing about filters.

>]
>]> Introduction to my above understanding is contained in Mr. Jeff


>]> Sinclair's 4-part posting, all dated 1/9/2000, sub-entitled "Setting
>]> the Record Straight." Mr. Sinclair's postings in general seem to be
>]> well documented with great respect for the logical critical-thinking
>]> process. I hope many will investigate his thought provoking work:
>]
>]I haven't seen these posts. Sinclair is filtered out by my browser. This was a
>]decision I made as a result of his refusal to cease with vulgarities and
>]immature inuendoes about the holocaust. If you find that sort of tactic to be
>]respectable, then by all means enjoy.

Mr. Gardiner, please refer to the Sinclair postings cited in my
initial posting at this thread, along with message ID's -- to give you
the benefit of doubt about your not reading them. I believe these
address matters that are in the hearts and minds of your contesters.
If you ignore them this is avoiding the issue. You must know that
your contesters won't go away until you do.

>]
>]> By following these links and from exploring other web-links for


>]> Christian Right activist groups I believe most who investigate will
>]> agree with my understanding and concerns. Even a disagreeing reader
>]> will be better informed.
>]
>]Exactly which "Christian Right" activist group do you think I represent or am
>]in conspiracy with?? The principal ecclesiastical organizations I have been
>]affiliated with in the last 8 years are Princeton Seminary and the liberal
>]wing of the Presbyterian Church. I don't attend church often any more.

Just read the Sinclair postings, it's all there.

>]
>]I now teach high school history at an non-religious college prep school.


>]
>]Gary Amos is a friend. So what? Most of my friends are Marxist-leaning
>]academicians. So what?
>]
>]Jim Kennedy liked my book. So what? A few of my liberal professors at
>]Princeton liked my book. So what?
>]
>]As Mr. Schulman has rightly observed, you have made a rather hasty and
>]superficial assessment of me and my "position."
>]
>]RG

Yes, so what. Please address the issues raised by Sinclair's
postings, or better, just return the American history newsgroups to
general-interest users.

Nathan

mscu...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to
In article <387fa97b....@news.arthur.k12.il.us>,

cody...@yahoo.com (Nathan McClean) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:03:25 GMT, mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >]Pardon me for jumping in, but I reject calls for censorship also. In

> >]the market place of ideas Mr. Gardiner is entitled to present his
> >]arguments and those of us who disagree may disagree. I would call on
> >]Mr. Gardiner to discuss the arguments we are making about colonial
> >]society and not redesign our arguments in his own fashion.
Discussion
> >]is not spam. The content of posts addressing Mr. Gardiner's
arguments
> >]are not spam. I consider posts to be spam if one is posting colonial
> >]history to alt.islam and other places. When Mr. Gardiner decided to
use
> >]David Irving as a source I directed my response to alt.revisionism
> >]since David Irving (and Hitler) haven't much to do with colonial
> >]history. That's how these things happen. Your post here is going to
> >]historical groups and to a skeptic group. Okay, I understand the
> >]relationship between skepticism and the battle against pseudo-
history
> >]and pseudo-science.
>
> My intent is not to censor, it is to challenge him to leave the
> history NG's voluntarily.

He isn't about to do so. So why bother. It's possible we may be getting
into a rehash of a discussion concerning why the "Pilgrims" came to
this country. It'll have to do with both religion and money. Both
facets are worth noting. I will attempt to place the emphasis where it
belongs, however.

> Some might say this is a type of censorship
> but I say that Gardiner's propaganda is off-topic in the sense that

Propaganda, as you well know, can be true. It can be false. At least
Gardiner is willing to respond unlike some other people who post and
never respond. That is close to real spam.

> its obvious purpose is to further Protestant Religious Right

So what? As long as he speaks out then he can be refuted. The same is
true for holocaust deniers. We liked them speaking out for we could
show people not familiar with the history what fools they are. WE also
are able to show readers the tactics they use. Whatever you think
Gardiner's purpose is, he is free to express those ideas as others are
to comment on them. This is what the framers intented when they wrote
the first amendment.

> (extremist) interests of politico-religious nature, therefore being a
> political/religion newsgroup topic -- his propaganda has nothing to do
> with true and accurate contributions to the knowledge base of American
> colonial history including the American Revolutionary War. Followers

Actually, he is right and wrong. He mixes truth in with his
distortions. If he is left alone to distort then young readers or those
not familiar with the history will think that he is totally correct. I
respond to him because I strongly believe in accurate history. If you
think *I* have an axe to grind then you haven't been reading *my*
responses to Gardiner over the past year or so.

> and contesters of Gardiner subscribe to the history NG's primarily
> because he does.

I subscribe to the colonial news group because I have had a 25 year
focus with colonial New England. That's where my interest is. That's
why *I* subscribe.

> As to SPAM this is also defined as crossposting an article or response
> to more than four newsgroups regardless of the discussion or response
> content, with 'four' being based on an occasional 'need,' not to be
> constantly abused. Re: Deja.com web page.

Deja news does not run usenet. They have their rules and they are good
rules. I was a sysop and moderator on Compuserve for two years or so. I
do know what spam is and what is discussion. As long as discussion is
taking place it is not spam. Crossposting happens because parts of the
discussion swing into other areas. There are honest reasons for
crossposting. There are also other reasons and you might ask the person
who originally posted the thread why it belongs there if it concerns
you.

> I posted to two history NG's along with two others only to follow
> Gardiner's lead, I'm not prould of it. To further demonstrate
> SPAMMING within the religion-topic group, RL Johnson posted an article
> on 1/3/2000 *only* to the alt.history.colonial NG.

Actually he has posted to others. And he does not respond to people
commenting on his original posts. That, too me, constitutes spam. It
would on CompuServe forums. But since he focuses on certain newsgroups
having to do with deism and colonial, revolutionary periods he can do
so. Since he doesn't respond I simply do not take the time any longer
to read his posts. He's not posting to discuss. Gardiner does discuss.

[snip]

> This again demonstrates that Gardiner is more interested in spreading
> his propaganda tale to as large an audience that he thinks he can get
> away with -- rather than being truly interested in contributing to a
> particular topic.

I do realize that Gardiner is a propagandist. Yet, he is a propagandist
he "discusses" his propaganda. It really hacks me off to be in the
position here to defend some of what he does. I'm not defending his
style of debate of some of his tactics. However, he isn't violating any
strong usenet rule that I'm aware of.

> [snip]
>
> >]Also I find it difficult to discuss colonial history without there
> >]being a religious facet. It is nearly impossible to discuss colonial
> >]New England without it. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
> >]Pennsylvania and several others are difficult discussions without
> >]having religion come into the history. My concern is emphasis and
> >]perspective. EVen the Indian Wars had a religious aspect in
> >]Massachusetts-Bay.
>
> Some if not many threads by this group have gone far afield of
> colonial American history topics: ancient Hebrew history,

That will happen during discussions. It's a fact of human conversation
that digressions will occur.

> biblical
> interpretations and dogs being a few I recall off hand. Religion (and
> politics) can be read into many topics, religion is the entire world
> to some people, but I don't believe this makes it right or courteous
> of Mr. Gardiner to overwhelm the colonial history and US Rev War
> newsgroups with obiously religion-only topics when there are religion
> or other applicable newsgroups available.

I do agree that some of that was off-topic in the group. Yet it did
show Mr. Gardiner's knowledge for what it was and it also showed his
debate style for what it is. I have a subtle interest in it because I
have an interest in what is called Puritanism.

We all digress at times. You'll have to pardon us for being imperfect.

> [snip]
>
> >]> Btw, I at first had trouble with message URL's referenced in Jeff
> >]> Sinclair's postings. I was successful only by copying/pasting the
> >]> first line into my browser's URL- address pane, then the second
line
> >]> (with no space between) before clicking the 'enter' key to access
the
> >]> URL.
> >]
> >]What news reader are you using?
>
> I'm using Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243. Any advice will be
> appreciated.

Buy the real version. It's worth it. It's $30 and you can download it.
They are up to Version 1.7. It's a wonderful product.

buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to

PART I


ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:

>:|In article <ne8u7s0la9s5f2pi5...@4ax.com>,


>:| <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>"Richard Tree" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|[...]
>:|

>:|>>:|That said, we all have a right to our views. Moreover, we all have a right


>:|>>:|to argue them. Humanism and materialism are profound influences in our
>:|>>:|institutions of "higher learning." Frankly, I believe the Secular
>:|>>:|Humanist's agenda is deeper than just denying Christianity in Colonial
>:|>>:|America.
>:|>
>:|>Secular Humanist?

>:|
>:|Religious Right?


>:|
>:|>Care to elaborate?
>:|
>:|Why don't you elaborate on the definition of relgious right? You like
>:|to throw it about frequently.


Already posted that to you, couple of times a long time ago, and then at
least once recently.

But, hey, no problem, can do it again..

Afterwards perhaps you can then explain secular humanists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE "RELIGIOUS RIGHT": A DEFINITION

The groups and activists described in these pages dislike the designation
"religious right" -- a promiscuous media concoction that has sometimes lent
itself to caricature and derogation. Religious conservatives usually prefer
a less sectarian tag, like the irenic "pro-family movement," or the fuzzy
"people of faith." Most Americans consider themselves "pro-family" and
claim religious faith, however, and the phrase "religious right" is fair
when it is specific: in this report it refers to an array of politically
conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to
influence public policy based on a shared cultural philosophy that is
antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation. The movement
consists mainly of Protestants, most of them evangelical or fundamentalist,
a far smaller number of Catholics, and a smattering of Jews.

Some stereotype-busting is in order. The majority of evangelicals and
fundamentalists -- roughly 30 million Americans -- are not affiliated with
religious right groups. Billy Graham, most notably, has not made cornrnon
cause with the movement, and such leading evangelical figur-es as Crystal
Cathedral televangelist Robert Schuller and former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop have maintained a congenial distance. Additionally, while
religious right activists are almost exclusively members of the Republican
Party, many evangelicals are Democrats. These include Jimmy Carter, to name
a famous example, most born-again African-Americans, and a small
constellation of evangelical activists that may be dubbed the "religious
left." A number of socially conservative Catholics also tend to vote
Democratic.

For these reasons, while religious right voter registration efforts and
shifting affiliations have added millions of white evangelicals to GOP
rolls since 1979, the popular characterization of devout Christians as
diehard Republicans is distorted. According to 1992 Gallup surveys, while
41 percent of` Republicans identified themselves as "born again," the
proportion was nearly the same for Democrats -- 39 percent. SiInilarly, 79
percent of Republicans claim to be church members, as do 71 percent of
Democrats. Further, 65 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of
Democrats agree that religion is "very important" in their lives.'
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Religious Right: The assault on Tolerance &
Pluralism in America, A Publication of the Anti-Defamation League, (1994)
pp 7.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List of SOME of the groups and individuals that make up the Religious
Right.

Pat Robertson:
The Christian Coalition:
Billy McCormack
The American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Sekulow
David Barton
Focus on the Family
Dr. James C. Dobson
The American Family Association
Donald Wildmon
The Free Congress Foundation
Paul Weyrich
Citizens for Excellence in Education
Concerned Women for America
Traditional Values Coalition
Operation Rescue
Terry Randall
Reconstructionists
John (R.J). Rushdoony
Gary NorthDavid Chilton
Gary DeMar
James Jordon
Coalition on Revivial
Jay Grimstead
Joseph Morecraft
Robert Thoburn
Gary Amos
Joseph Kickasola
Regent University
Steven Hotze
Rutherford Institute
John Whitehead
Jerry Falwell
Phyllis Schlafly
Beverly LaHaye
Lou Sheldon
Eagle Forum
D. Jaames Kennedy
Coral Ridge Ministries
----------------------------------------------------------------
The above is a list of just SOME. of the individuals and organizations that
are referred to when the term *Religious Right* or *Radical Religious
Right* or *Ultra Religious Right* is used.
BTW the above information comes from the same publication as cited above.

TO BE CONTINUED (aren'tr you really glad you asked)

buc...@exis.net

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to

PART II

The battle being waged by the Christian Right to reclaim American for
Christ is being waged on other fronts as well. The extreme right-wing of
the movement is prominently occupied by the Reconstructionists, who believe
fervently that the law given by God for the political, legal, and spiritual
ordering of ancient Israel as set forth in the Old Testament is intended
for all people in all ages. Consequently, the United States should adopt
and implement the Mosaic Code as the theocratic foundation of its legal
system. Under the Reconstructionists' political theology, religious liberty
for all Americans would essentially cease, and all heresy would be stamped
out through the enforcement of biblical law.
One new strategy of the Reconstructionists is to identify all Christian
pastors across America who support their views, as well as those who do
not. According to Reconstructionist leader Jay Rogers, "the idea is to
divide the church in America into two camps: 1) those who are committed to
the battle for a Christian republic, and 2) those who are committed to 'the
myth of neutrality' or who are openly opposed to rebuilding a Christian
nation." All church leaders would be asked to sign a statement confirming
their allegiance; the lists would then be Posted on the Internet, made the
subject of press releases, and disseminated by mail. Those not aligning
with the cause would be "recruited" for membership. National synods of the
new "Confessing Church in America" would be held in odd-numbered years over
the next decade. The ultimate goal would be to build a spiritual army
"organized to re-build America upon the principles of the Bible," according
to Reconstructionist precepts. The "Confessing Church" would also issue
prayer Proclamations to call attention to misfits such as "Jesse Jackson,
Peter Comes (the openly homosexual 'Professor of Christian Morals at
Harvard'), or whoever are the 'pestilent prelates' God raises up and
hardens to oppose the 'Confessing Church' in the 21st century." The
"Confessing Church" would also pay for full-page ads in newspapers
around the country proclaiming that "A vote for Al Core is a sin against
God." Finally, as the United States was formed by a "Declaration of
Independence," the new America would be governed by a formal
"Declaration of Dependence Upon God," which calls for, among other
things, a turn away from "humanism and lawlessness" to a "covenanted
nation of biblical warrant."
In many ways, of course, the rhetoric of the mainstream Christian Right
is sometimes indistinguishable from that of Reconstructionists. Jerry
Falwell, for example, asserts that "God promoted America to a greatness as
no other nation has ever enjoyed because her heritage is one of a republic
government by laws predicated on the Bible." David Barton, in his widely
circulated book, The Myth of Separation, argues that the founding fathers
intended "that this nation should be a Christian nation; not because all
who lived in it were Christians, but because it was founded on and would be
governed by Christian principles." But the overall political agenda of the
Christian Right is less extreme, less strident in tone, and less theocratic
than the Reconstructionists. The Christian Right's political model might
have theocratic tendencies, but it would be a distinctly "Christianized"
version based more on the New Testament covenant emphasizing grace than the
Old Testament covenant emphasizing law. There would be, in theory, freedom
for non- Christians to worship according to conscience, with the hope that
they would, over time, become convinced of the merits of a nation
constructed on biblical principles. Non-Christians would not be denied the
right to worship privately according to their own beliefs, but they would
be expected to submit to a Public agenda that implemented Christian ideals
in many quarters. There would be Christian prayer in the public schools,
Christian symbols in the public square, public monies available to
religious enterprises (with most going to those operated by the culturally
dominant faith, Christianity), and governments in which the principal seats
were held by Christians.
The operative church-state legal framework would be Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist"s nonpreferentialism. Rather than placing limits on
government's ability to be an advocate of religion in general, which is the
Supreme Court's current and controversial position, nonpreferentialism
holds that government can advance religion provided it is done
nondiscriminatorily. The problem with this doctrine, although hardly a
problem for the Christian Right, is that it would permit the dominant
religion of the culture (Christianity), by sheer force of a numbers
advantage, to be the religion most often advanced. In other words, formal,
programmatic discrimination against religious minorities would be illegal,
but a de facto discrimination would not.
Journal of Church and State, Volume 41, Summer 1999, Number 3, Editorial:
Thoughts on the Possible Realignment of the Christian Right in Twenty-first
Century America, by Derek H. Davis pp 436-438
=====================================================================


The Christian Right's foray into Politics over the last three decades
fails in large measure because the aim of theocratizing the nation goes far
beyond the biblical mandate they claim to rely upon. It has long been a
source of agitation for many faith-minded Americans that so many
conservative Christians enter the battle to Christianize the nation without
any real sense of a biblically-based political theology for doing so.
Obviously, there are many within the Christian Right movement who have a
political theology that differs from that which will be presented here, and
their views deserve respect, but there are many who seemingly have thought
very little about the subject whom perhaps could be persuaded to reconsider
their motives for seeking to reconstitute America along theological lines.
This is neither the time nor place to attempt anything like a full
exposition of the Bible's teaching on Christian political involvement, but
examining even a few basic principles will serve to make the main points of
what the Bible seems to teach.
We might begin by suggesting that if one examines the New Testament, he
finds that it is in no way a textbook for political ordering. It says a
great deal about Christians responsibility to submit to Political
authority, but is virtually silent about any political regime's duty to
operate pursuant to theological underpinnings. The Church Fathers sensed
this only too well, and that is why they began to look elsewhere for
assistance in formulating a political theology. They looked first to the
Old Testament, but it was clear to them that the New Testament had
abrogated the Mosaic law, and thus not wanting to rejudaize Christianity,
they turned to the only other available source of information, classical
political philosophy. For several centuries to come, Christian theologians
were prone to bathe this secular philosophical tradition in the Bible, thus
creating a political theology that merged church and state and made their
goals synonymous. This was a fatal error, leading to centuries of political
efforts to define and enforce acceptable religious belief, and the
consequent elimination of hundreds of thousands of "heretics" whose sole
crime was to subscribe to religious beliefs outside state-mandated norms.
It was also an unnecessary error, given that the New Testament upon which
they supposedly relied never prescibes such a merger of state power and
religious activity. Unfortunately, this error is now being repeated by the
Christian Right.
The Reconstructionists make the most obvious error, that which the Church
Fathers knew was not an option-failing to see that the New Testament offers
Christ as the fulfillment of all the demands of the Law. Christ's
announcement in Matthew 5:17 that He had come to fulfill the Law indicated
that he was the One to whom all of the Law (civil, moral, and ceremonial)
had pointed and was to find its ultimate fulfillment. In other words, all
of the holy demands of the Law, all of the strict requirements of being a
nation ruled by God, found their completion in Jesus Christ, who alone
could satisfy them. Add to this Christ's admonition to obey the Roman
secular authorities, and the fact that He never took steps to reinaugurate
Israel's old theocratic system, and we are left with the conclusion that
every nation should avoid, on biblical grounds, constructing a theocracy
based on the teaching of the Old Testament.
But of course most of the Christian Right do not advocate, in the fashion
of the Reconstructionists, a reinstatement of the entire body of the Old
Testament Law, but rather an increased attention to timeless, divine
principles that presumably will give the nation the moral rudder it now
lacks. This sounds more palatable, but what are the dhine principles to be
implemented, and what is the ultimate goal of this implementation? If we
look at the political issues emphasized by the Christian Right, we get some
idea of what divine principles are to be implemented. The Christian Right
advocacy for banning abortions, allowing school prayer, penalizing
homosexuality, and permitting government-funded private education all
assume that the Bible supports these positions. Whether these positions
represent the correct interpretation of the Bible is not the question here,
but rather the fact that these positions, based on the Bible and enacted
through political means, amount to the creation of a religious state,
something the founding fathers specifically declined to do, choosing
instead to place national sovereignty under the people rather than God,
evidenced most demonstrably by the fact that they chose to omit God's name
from the Constitution after deliberating the possibility of inclusion.
Moreover, the political enforcement of these positions surely has as its
aim the goal of pointing all citizens to God as the ultimate source of
truth, and teaching that the most critical aspect of God's truth is
humanity's need for salvation of the soul. Is this not a confusion of
kingdoms (earthly and heavenly) which Christ himself taught against? Did he
not teach that spiritual goals and political goals are not synonymous? In
Matthew 22:21, Christ said that Christians are to "render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Christ
here was clearly affirming that spiritual commitments are to be
distinguished from political commitments.
Christ perfectly modeled this distinction between spiritual and temporal
ends. He never advocated the overthrow of the Roman government, or even its
adjustment, in favor of a more theocratic order. He never identified
Himself with any particular form of government, nor any political party,
nor did He even remotely suggest that it was the duty of human government
to aid His mission. Christ was amazingly unconcerned with much of what
falls under the rubric of politics. He preached against tyranny and
oppression, of course, but his main mission was to bring men to Himself and
it was apparently a secondary matter to Him what specific form of
government (monarchy, democracy, etc.) men live under. The temporal was for
him far less important than the eternal; thus He focused on the spiritual
rather than the physical aspects of Kingdom building. The idea of a
"Christian" nation, it seems, was foreign to him.
If Christ was largely unconcerned with many of the details of politics
and far more concerned with soul winning, perhaps Christians should be too.
Christians in America, it seems, and this is perhaps what Paul Weyrich and
Cal Thomas seem to be saying, frequently become too concerned with the need
for government to become identified with Christian principles. Many
Christians wrongly believe that Christianity will flourish in a more
Christian political environment. History shows the opposite to be true.
Christianity grew more rapidly than at any time in history in the first
three centuries after Christ's death when Christians were persecuted for
not bowing the knee to Caesar. Christians understandably sought more
favorable political conditions for themselves. By the fourth century,
Christianity was so widespread that it became impossible to control it by
means of outright persecution; the emperor Constantine placed it on a
neutral basis with other religions in 313 A.D., and in 3130 A.D. Theodosius
made it the official religion of the empire. The faith thereafter lost much
of its vitality, distinctiveness, and vigor, owing to its Preferred
political status. Merged with government, Christianity became consumed with
temporal affairs--armies, police, crime, taxation, commerce, economics,
etc. and less focused on the mission outlined for it by Christ and the
apostles. In its witness, the Church gradually began to rely less on the
power of its spiritual message than on the power of the sword to enforce
its politicalwill. The persecuted had turned persecutor. Is this not the
same path the Christian Right would now have us follow?
I would hope not to be misunderstood here. I am not advocating
indifference to politics, just as I do not think Weyrich and Thomas are
advocating indifference to politics. As John Courtney Murray once said,
politics is part of the moral universe, and Christians are rightly
concerned with morality. In their daily lives, Christians are to be
Christian citizens, not merely Christians, But because the Bible does not
require that political and governmental affairs be Christian, those who are
Christians are free to join with non-Christians in our democratic form of
government to make laws that from the perspective of the American people as
a whole, not from the perspective of their own interpretation of the Bible,
best ensure the common good. In this process, negotiation and compromise
are not dirty words, and Christians should be satisfied with laws that fall
short of biblical standards as they understand them. Biblical standards may
dictate the contributions that Christians make toward the formation of laws
if they believe their views advance the common good, but Christians do not
fail God if the negotiated product, even laws on such controversial areas
as abortion, school prayer, and homosexuality, do not meet their standards.
The everwidening religious pluralism that is America is not, according to
this model, a threat. Indeed, religious pluralism pursuant to this model is
something to be celebrated rather than denounced because the religious
views of all citizens are given equal standing under the law. The goal,
even duty, of Christians should be to respect non-Christians' equal
ownership of the nation, and to 戢ssist the government in the promotion of
the welfare of all American citizens based upon a shared morality, not to
set up a Kingdom of God on earth. It was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that it
is the achievement of democracy, not a sectarian Political agenda, that is
the heart of a Christian public philosophy
Meanwhile, Christians should vigorously pursue the spiritual mission of
the Church, which is to do good to all people (Galatians 6:10), and to
spread the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). They might call upon the government
to assist them in the first task, but not in the second.
Journal of Chruch and State, Volume 41, Summer 1999, Number 3, Editorial:
Thoughts on the Possible Realignment of the Christian Right in Twenty-first
Century America, by Derek H. Davis pp 438-441

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

roger...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/15/00
to