Under God
ambrose searle
contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
federal judges in San Francisco.
From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
1) Jefferson advocated the following motto for the United States:
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson indicated that
this phrase was originally the motto of one of the Calvinists who
executed King Charles I.
(Sources: Journal of the Continental Congress, August 20, 1776;
Charles Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson
[Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1987], p. 4; Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Everett, February 24, 1823)
2) In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that the
equality of people is a "sacred truth," and that all of our human
rights come from "our Creator." The two federal judges in San
Francisco have effectively decided that it is unconstitutional for a
school teacher to assert that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
is valid!
3) Jefferson asked this very relevant question given the two federal
judges' decision: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
(Source: Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII)
So, what would Jefferson do? The evidence shows that he voted the same
way the 99 U.S. Senators did in their resolution against the two
judges in San Francisco.
Some might say that Jefferson is not the one to consult; rather, we
must consult Madison, the chief architect of the constitution and the
principal author of the first amendment.
Okay, let's.
"The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted
with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to
be impressed with it."
James Madison to Frederick Beasley, Nov. 20, 1825
And our federal judges have determined that George Washington was dead
wrong when he said:
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand
which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United
States...
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the
instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with
caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle."
(Source: George Washington, First Inaugural & Farewell Addresses)
Furthermore, Dr. Docherty, the man behind adding "under God" to the
Pledge, stated it thus:
"It was feared that the newly worded Pledge forced atheistic citizens
to pledge allegiance to God. I argued that they pledged allegiance not
to God, but to the flag. The phrase under God describes the historic
fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in
divine providence."
George Docherty, I've Seen the Day, p. 160
Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
"under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
are lousy historians at best.
Searle
Mark K. Bilbo
> Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> are lousy historians at best.
Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
[Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"]
Import Car Fan
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com...
> I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
> contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> federal judges in San Francisco.
>
> From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
None of the examples you cite are instances where the
government mandates or supports religious expression.
The Framers of the Constitution got it correct when they
wrote the 1st Amendment.
J&S
> contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> federal judges in San Francisco.
>
> From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>
> 1) Jefferson advocated the following motto for the United States:
> "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson indicated that
> this phrase was originally the motto of one of the Calvinists who
> executed King Charles I.
Clavin eh?
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition,
the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved,
and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn
them; no virtues of the latter save." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin
Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
Which would seem to support this one...
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a
slaughter-house." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
>
> (Sources: Journal of the Continental Congress, August 20, 1776;
> Charles Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson
> [Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1987], p. 4; Thomas
> Jefferson to Edward Everett, February 24, 1823)
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining
a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which
their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves
for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his
doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a
counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find
many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely
benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so
much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that
such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate,
therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the
latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of
this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the
first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short,
1820
>
> 2) In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that the
> equality of people is a "sacred truth," and that all of our human
> rights come from "our Creator." The two federal judges in San
> Francisco have effectively decided that it is unconstitutional for a
> school teacher to assert that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
> is valid!
"Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every
opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if
there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded
fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its
consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find
incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its
exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you"
(Jefferson's Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
>
> 3) Jefferson asked this very relevant question given the two federal
> judges' decision: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
> when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
> of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so
incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any
idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he
does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his
reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and
like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons,
gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind
becomes a wreck."(Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).
"I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the
Constitution from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
discipline, or exercises. But it is only proposed that I should recommend,
not prescribe a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly
assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the
Constitution has directly precluded them from. ... Every one must act
according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil
powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no
authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
Notes on Virginia eh? You must have missed this one...
"By our own act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the
Christian religion denies the being of God, or the Trinity, or asserts there
are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the
Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense
by incapacity to hold any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or
military; on the second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy,
to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years' imprisonment
without bail. A fathers right to the custody of his own children being
founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may
of course be severed from him, and put by the authority of the court, into
more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery under
which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives
and fortunes for the establishment of civil freedom."
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there
are twenty gods or no God. Constraint may make him worse by making him a
hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man."
"Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for
these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it
while we refuse it ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has
established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this
a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself."(pp. 234-237,)
>
> )
>
> So, what would Jefferson do? The evidence shows that he voted the same
> way the 99 U.S. Senators did in their resolution against the two
> judges in San Francisco.
>
> Some might say that Jefferson is not the one to consult; rather, we
> must consult Madison, the chief architect of the constitution and the
> principal author of the first amendment.
>
> Okay, let's.
>
> "The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
> moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
> which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted
> with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to
> be impressed with it."
>
> James Madison to Frederick Beasley, Nov. 20, 1825
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the
public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them
not." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of
maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary
operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all
places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, "A
Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
>
> And our federal judges have determined that George Washington was dead
> wrong when he said:
>
> "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand
> which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United
> States...
> Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
> sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the
> instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with
> caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained
> without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
> education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
> forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
> of religious principle."
>
> (Source: George Washington, First Inaugural & Farewell Addresses)
One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection
with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the
following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a
friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it
"With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts;
that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental
Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services,
went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs.
Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I
considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy
tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who
uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I
acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he
received it" (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by
Remsberg, pp. 104-105).
> Furthermore, Dr. Docherty, the man behind adding "under God" to the
> Pledge, stated it thus:
>
> "It was feared that the newly worded Pledge forced atheistic citizens
> to pledge allegiance to God. I argued that they pledged allegiance not
> to God, but to the flag. The phrase under God describes the historic
> fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in
> divine providence."
>
> George Docherty, I've Seen the Day, p. 160
>
> Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> are lousy historians at best.
>
> Searle
When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the
blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution
was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was
absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by
Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question
was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and
after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not
only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and
sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been
conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the
government have not been men making any public profession of
Christianity.... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed
by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing
Christian (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added).
The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York Albany
Daily Advertiser, October 1831
Heres a Benny F. for ya, eat history...
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or
requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above
it." - Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion",
Nov. 20, 1728
So why all the fuss????
Silas
chibiabos
<for...@bout.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> > are lousy historians at best.
>
> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
was written by a socialist.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH:
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
Therion Ware
-0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> brought the total lines of text
written about "Re: Under God" to 21. I decided to observe the
following about them:
>In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
><for...@bout.it> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
>> > are lousy historians at best.
>>
>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>
>A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
>nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
>was written by a socialist.
And the "under God" bit largely introduced at the behest of the RCC,
who as everyone knows are in league with the devil.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
bob
Anti-Theist Thomas Jefferson :) bob
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com...
J&S
"bob" <now...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:uhnl8ed...@corp.supernews.com...
> thanks for enlightening all the atheists on that
> Anti-Theist Thomas Jefferson :) bob
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He
is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest
religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all
mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas
Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children,
since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has
been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other
half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas
Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"
"It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.
By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the
priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their
interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an
infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).
A letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith.
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme
being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable
of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823).
"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It
has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by
newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy,"
Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and
not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Letter to the Danbury Baptists
"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry
whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his
body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by
argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities".
The statute of religious freedom,Virginia Assembly,1786, penned by
Jefferson, and Madison
Steve Krulick
...
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
Only if you selectively show one side of the historical record;
consider the other side:
"Question with boldness even the existance of a god; because, if
there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than
that of blindfolded fear."
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on
man."
"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same
as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian
god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If
one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like
god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say
they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain
of Jupiter".
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect,
educator, and diplomat
> Some might say that Jefferson is not the one to consult; rather, we
> must consult Madison, the chief architect of the constitution and the
> principal author of the first amendment.
Likewise; behold another more direct Madison, not on the public
stage of public religiosity:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or
less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy;
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,
bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the
liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits
it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison, U.S. President
> And our federal judges have determined that George Washington was dead
> wrong when he said:
Politicians often wear a pious veneer on solemn occasions to
justify their actions. But over the whole of their lives, what
evidence do we have?
"George Washington, the first president of the United States,
never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary
reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington
championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and
compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the
existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the
other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal.
Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed,
Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not
call for a clergyman to be in attendance."
(From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp.
16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas, TX)
If anything, the US was founded primarily by Deists, Unitarians,
and Atheists many of whom were also prominent Freemasons. Having
escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7%
of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the
Declaration of Independence was signed.
Any mention of a deity was usually, "Providence" or "Nature's
God" and the word "GOD" is totally absent from the US
Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate
in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is
not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty
was written during the Washington administration, and sent to
the Senate during the Adams administration.
It was during John Adam's administration that the Senate
ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in
Article XI that "the government of the United States of America
is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
religion in it."
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."
-John Adams, U.S. President
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I
absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and
inventor
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish,
Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human
inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and
monopolize power and profit."
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church,
by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church,
by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...
Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my
own part, I disbelieve them all."
-Thomas Paine, American Revolutionary
For some more quotes from the founders:
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
Steven Krulick
Mark K. Bilbo
> In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
> <for...@bout.it> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
>> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
>>
>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>
> A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> was written by a socialist.
I've noticed that one too.
And they say irony is dead...
Mark K. Bilbo
Oh, yeah, I forgot about *that one. Inserting "under God" was a papalist
idea...
Leo
> contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> federal judges in San Francisco.
>
> From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
Hey, yeah, what WOULD Jefferson do?
Probably screw a few of his slaves and then go destroy the economy of Haiti.
Regardless of what we learned in second grade history class, the U.S.'s
founding fathers were far from perfect. They all had good points but some
of them did terrible things as well. They were humans, not saints. Arguing
from authority is a logical fallacy.
--
Leo --- a.a. #1941 ôżő
EAC Enumerator of Trolls ~
"Jesus Saves! He passes to Moses,
Moses shoots, it's good for two points!" -anon
Wayne J. Barbarek
got it correct when they wrote the 1st Amendment."
Please explain, while keeping in mind that the First Amendment says
that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of
religion *or* abridging the freedom of speech." How is it that
students in our schools, for example, repeatedly asserted their right
to freedom of speech, yet they apply a completely opposite weight on
that of the "free exercise of religion" which appears *before*
"freedom of speech" in the First Amendment.
Also, keep in mind, that the prohibition on Congress respecting an
"establishment of religion" and the prohibition on abridging the "free
exercise thereof" are two separate prohibitions.
Why is freedom of speech treated one way, and the free exercise of
religion treated a completely different way? Should they not be
treated the same?
If my city, for example, endorses free speech, why cannot they also
endorse free religion on the same public property, whether it is in a
public school or whether it is in the chambers of city hall? Should
not both these freedoms, as stated in the first amendment, have at
least equal weight?
And if there is to be such a separation between Church and State as
some allege, are we then to deny a church from incorporating, knowing
full well that a corporation is an extension of the State. And should
we not also then deny churches from being tax exempt or receiving tax
advantages that are nothing less than a taxpayer endorsement of the
church by indirectly subsidizing them by allowing them to not pay
taxes that everyone else that is not exempt must pay? -- i.e. by
making a church exempt, more money must come out of the pockets of the
people in order to compensate for the taxes not paid by the church,
hence it is no different than if the church paid taxes and then
received direct subsidies from the public treasury.
Is this what the framers really intended -- that perhaps anything
connected with religion must be somehow practiced in the closet and
completely out of public view; that we are to deny that and the basic
principles under which this country and our unalienable freedoms and
rights are founded as stated in the Declaration of Independence?
Andy Poe
Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
news:3D1BE0B8...@krulick.com...
> ambrose searle wrote:
> ...
> > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> > this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>
> Only if you selectively show one side of the historical record;
> consider the other side:
Even so, it is irrelevant.
Even if every founding father was an active Christian, that no way implies
that they wanted the USA to be. Citing personal correspondence to "prove"
they were religious in no way undermines the fact that when they wrote the
official American documents, they left God out of it. Presumably, the
omission was for a reason!
ambrose searle
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> > are lousy historians at best.
>
> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
If you are under the impression that Docherty, Ike, or the Congress
invented that phrase in 1954, then you are deluded. The phrase was
lifted from the Gettysburg Address by Docherty on Lincoln Sunday, Feb.
7, 1954. Ike liked the sermon and got the wheels rolling in Congress
the next day.
"Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!!
Heck, Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is
unconstitutional! Anything that has a religious origin is
unconstitutional!!
Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god
of Thunder; January is from the Greek god Janus, the god who looks
both forward and backward, and the number 2002... well that has
something to do with that horrific being, Jesus Christ (Domini).
Thus, the only thing left for the teacher to write is "Today is 3."
And I wouldn't be surprised if Arabic numerals originally derived from
some religious function.
You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
Western culture.
If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
Searle
ambrose searle
> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:47:13
> -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> brought the total lines of text
> written about "Re: Under God" to 21. I decided to observe the
> following about them:
>
> >In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
> ><for...@bout.it> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> >> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> >> > are lousy historians at best.
> >>
> >> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >
> >A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> >nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> >was written by a socialist.
>
> And the "under God" bit largely introduced at the behest of the RCC,
> who as everyone knows are in league with the devil.
I find it revealing that your understanding of 20th century history is
as bad as your understanding of 18th and 19th century history.
The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty
to Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
heeded.
It was Docherty, who is a Presbyterian clergyman, whose "behest"
introduced the phrase into the Pledge.
(see Congressional Record, House, February 12, 1954, p. 1700; also
George M. Docherty, I've Seen the Day, 1987, p. 160).
And I remind you that Docherty didn't coin the phrase. It was said by
Lincoln on November 19, 1863 at Gettysburg, just after Lincoln said
that our forefathers conceived this nation dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal... remember that speech?
Unconstitutional huh? If only Lincoln had to answer to San Francisco
radicals and internet atheists! Perhaps then the institution of
slavery would still exist, for it was men like Salmon P. Chase, who
put "In God We Trust" on the coins, and Julia Ward Howe, who wrote
"Battle Hymn of the Repulic," as well as the Quakers, who organized
the underground railroad, and the likes of William Lloyd Garrison,
Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriet Beecher Stowe, et
al, who challenged slavery on religious grounds. Please show evidence
of the great group of ATHEISTS who fought slavery.
Indeed religious southerners argued in favor of slavery on religious
grounds as well, but, in the end, slavery would not have come to an
end without the abolitionists, 99% of whom were religiously motivated,
including Lincoln.
So, go ahead, take the Declaration and the Gettysburg address away
from your children, and you will soon create a country where slavery
might be reintroduced.
Searle
ambrose searle
> -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> brought the total lines of text
> written about "Re: Under God" to 21. I decided to observe the
> following about them:
>
> >In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
> ><for...@bout.it> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> >> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> >> > are lousy historians at best.
> >>
> >> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >
> >A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> >nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> >was written by a socialist.
>
> And the "under God" bit largely introduced at the behest of the RCC,
> who as everyone knows are in league with the devil.
I find it informative that your understanding of 20th century history
ambrose searle
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:54:44 -0700, Therion Ware wrote:
>
> > In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:47:13
> > -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> brought the total lines of text
> > written about "Re: Under God" to 21. I decided to observe the following
> > about them:
> >
> >>In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
> >><for...@bout.it> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> >>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
> >>> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
> >>>
> >>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >>
> >>A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> >>nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> >>was written by a socialist.
> >
> > And the "under God" bit largely introduced at the behest of the RCC, who
> > as everyone knows are in league with the devil. -- "Do Unto Others As
> > You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
> > Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See:
> > <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. There is no
> > EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot about *that one. Inserting "under God" was a papalist
> idea...
I find it revealing that your understanding of 20th century history is
ambrose searle
Read again:
ambrose searle
> > I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
> > contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> > federal judges in San Francisco.
> >
> > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> > this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>
> None of the examples you cite are instances where the
> government mandates or supports religious expression.
Read again:
Dan Cyr
of America" in 1923 (I believe). Considering that the original pledge was
not meant to be nationalistic, or to any one particular nation, its
adaptation, and modification by the conservative religious political wing in
this nation is pretty funny (and ironic). What started as a pledge written
for the 1892 for the Columbus expo as an universal pledge for all republican
forms of democratic ruled countries at that time has ended up as a narrowly
directed nationalistic pledge with religious overtures.
NPR had a decent short story on the Pledge's history yesterday, and you
should be able to find in NPR's archives.
Dan
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> news:<uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
>> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
>>
>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>
> If you are under the impression that Docherty, Ike, or the Congress
> invented that phrase in 1954, then you are deluded. The phrase was
> lifted from the Gettysburg Address by Docherty on Lincoln Sunday, Feb.
> 7, 1954. Ike liked the sermon and got the wheels rolling in Congress the
> next day.
The phrase still had to be *added. Some sixty years after the pledge was
written.
> "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!! Heck,
> Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
Idiot. The point is that school children are being led in an endorsement
of monotheism at state run schools. I see no reason for such
indoctrination to take place at taxpayer expense.
> Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
> Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
> constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
> Thunder; January is from the Greek god Janus, the god who looks both
> forward and backward, and the number 2002... well that has something to
> do with that horrific being, Jesus Christ (Domini).
>
> Thus, the only thing left for the teacher to write is "Today is 3."
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if Arabic numerals originally derived from
> some religious function.
>
> You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
> Western culture.
>
> If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
> unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
> principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
>
> Searle
Do you people get any denser? Or have we found the limit yet?
I still see no reason that school children should be reciting an oath
that involves a blatant endorsement of monotheism.
No wonder our test scores are some of the lowest in the Western world.
People are too busy fretting over kids chanting loyalty oaths in school
rather than how much math they learned.
Mark K. Bilbo
> So, go ahead, take the Declaration and the Gettysburg address away from
> your children, and you will soon create a country where slavery might be
> reintroduced.
Oh you mean like the slavery condoned in the bible?
Mark K. Bilbo
> Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
> Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
> constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
> Thunder;
Then you won't mind if we as a nation reaffirm our heritage and change
the pledge to "under Thor" right?
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> news:<uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
>> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
>>
>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>
> If you are under the impression that Docherty, Ike, or the Congress
> invented that phrase in 1954, then you are deluded. The phrase was
> lifted from the Gettysburg Address by Docherty on Lincoln Sunday, Feb.
> 7, 1954. Ike liked the sermon and got the wheels rolling in Congress the
> next day.
Now that I've had some coffee...
The above paragraph of yours is just plain stupd. I'm well aware that the
phrase was not "invented" at the time. My point was that it was
*inserted by congress and some six decades after the pledge was written.
Now you spend a lot of time below babbling about cultural/historical
artifacts, throwing red herrings all *over the place. The phrase, notice,
also did NOT accrete into the pledge by some cultural process over
history. It was PUT into the pledge by the congress. Which makes this
issue properly something the courts can review.
> "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!! Heck,
> Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
This is a total dishonesty on your part. The issue before the court was
not--and the issue never has been--"anything that has a religious
origin." You are deliberately and disingeniously obfuscating the issue.
An action of congress was required to insert a state endorsement of
monotheism (and an implied endorsement of christianity) into the pledge.
Children at STATE funded and run schools are being led by STATE authority
figures in a loyalty oath that endorses a particular view on the issue of deity.
Yes I'm aware that since about 1942, they cannot legally be compelled to
participate. However, a STATE authority figure is still standing in front
of them, leading their class in a loyalty oath which endorses monotheism.
The message of endorsement is quite clear. And THAT is what this issue is
about. And THAT is why certain sectors of this country are so up in arms
over what appears on the surface to be a rather trivial issue.
> Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
> Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
> constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
> Thunder; January is from the Greek god Janus, the god who looks both
> forward and backward, and the number 2002... well that has something to
> do with that horrific being, Jesus Christ (Domini).
>
> Thus, the only thing left for the teacher to write is "Today is 3."
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if Arabic numerals originally derived from
> some religious function.
Again you disingeniously obfuscate cultural/historical artifacts with
acts of the congress. As if the insertion of "under god" just sort of
"happened" rather than being placed there with religious motivations by a
body restrained by the constitution from endorsing any religious view.
> You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
> Western culture.
Another red herring. The issue is state endorsement.
And speaking of public life, what about the citizens who are
polytheistic? Or who believe in goddess(es)? Why are YOU supporting the
idea of the state "purging" their views from public life?
> If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
> unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
> principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
Another dishonest red herring. Try to stay focused on the issue to hand.
Congress inserted an endorsement of monotheism into the pledge. Is it
proper they endorse any particular religious view?
Mark K. Bilbo
> The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty to
> Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
> petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
> heeded.
I was being flippant okay?
However, even YOU note the RCC support of the idea.
I find the whole thing ironic. The religious right is getting riled up
over a pledge written by a socialist and a phrase with papist support. So
it wasn't the KoC that actually got the phrase inserted, it's still
ironic given the religious right's hostility to the RCC.
Andrew Lannen
wrote:
>Even so, it is irrelevant.
>
>Even if every founding father was an active Christian, that no way implies
>that they wanted the USA to be. Citing personal correspondence to "prove"
>they were religious in no way undermines the fact that when they wrote the
>official American documents, they left God out of it. Presumably, the
>omission was for a reason!
I agree also that its irrelevant, but for an entirely
different reason. I've never understood the desire to be in
slavish adherence to the opinions of the "Founding Fathers."
Study them? Fine--most of them are fascinating. Admire them?
Great--some of them possessed tremendous virtues. Blindly follow
them? Not a chance. I reject the idea that in 1787 they solved
mankind's problems for the rest of eternity.
We are thinking beings (most of the time, at least). Let
people debate wheter the pledge of allegiance as written today is
constitutional according to modern understandings rather than
understandings 200 years ago. When you fall ill, do you ask the
doctor to consult "Ye Olde Medickal Manual" from 1787? Lances
and leeches, oh my!
-----
Andrew C. Lannen
and...@ix.netcom.com
Jesus Christ
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >
> > > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for
> > > adding "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in
> > > San Francisco are lousy historians at best.
> >
> > Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>
> A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> was written by a socialist.
...and added by Catholics, whom many USian Godfreaks loathe.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
\| Pastor Frank
M. Clark
CaptainKIRKusa1
==> VISIT MY STORE: http://www.cafepress.com/nojesus <==
Therion Ware
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:54:44 -0700, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism (and doubtless elsewhere), on Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:47:13
>> -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> brought the total lines of text
>> written about "Re: Under God" to 21. I decided to observe the following
>> about them:
>>
>>>In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
>>><for...@bout.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>>>> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
>>>> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
>>>>
>>>> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>>>
>>>A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
>>>nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
>>>was written by a socialist.
>>
>> And the "under God" bit largely introduced at the behest of the RCC, who
>> as everyone knows are in league with the devil.
[sigsnip]
>Oh, yeah, I forgot about *that one. Inserting "under God" was a papalist
>idea...
Perhaps we should really try the "so you follow the RCC then?"
argument against fundie fight back. After all they're so irrationally
and enthusiastically anti Roman Catholicism and anti Roman Catholic,
(being indoctrinated as such from childhood), they might decide to
forget the whole thing!
Tom Adams
> I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
> contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> federal judges in San Francisco.
>
> From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>
> "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson indicated that
> this phrase was originally the motto of one of the Calvinists who
> executed King Charles I.
>
> (Sources: Journal of the Continental Congress, August 20, 1776;
> Charles Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson
> [Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1987], p. 4; Thomas
> Jefferson to Edward Everett, February 24, 1823)
>
> equality of people is a "sacred truth," and that all of our human
> rights come from "our Creator." The two federal judges in San
> Francisco have effectively decided that it is unconstitutional for a
> school teacher to assert that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
> is valid!
>
> 3) Jefferson asked this very relevant question given the two federal
> judges' decision: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
> when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
> of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
>
> (Source: Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII)
>
> So, what would Jefferson do? The evidence shows that he voted the same
> way the 99 U.S. Senators did in their resolution against the two
> judges in San Francisco.
>
> must consult Madison, the chief architect of the constitution and the
> principal author of the first amendment.
>
>
> "The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
> moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
> which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted
> with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to
> be impressed with it."
>
> James Madison to Frederick Beasley, Nov. 20, 1825
>
> wrong when he said:
>
> which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United
> States...
> Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
> sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the
> instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with
> caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained
> without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
> education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
> forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
> of religious principle."
>
> (Source: George Washington, First Inaugural & Farewell Addresses)
> Furthermore, Dr. Docherty, the man behind adding "under God" to the
> Pledge, stated it thus:
>
> "It was feared that the newly worded Pledge forced atheistic citizens
> to pledge allegiance to God. I argued that they pledged allegiance not
> to God, but to the flag. The phrase under God describes the historic
> fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in
> divine providence."
>
>
> Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> are lousy historians at best.
>
Jefferson was a Deist. Deism was a religion of sort, but it was not
based on faith. It was based on the argument from design and reason.
But, Darwin knocked the prop out from under Deism. There were no
Deist after Jefferson.
Deist also held that each of us had a spark of the divine of sorts,
the spark was usually identified with reason, or free will.
This implied that we were equal and had rights.
So WWJD, ater Darwin? Well he might use Pragmatism to support the
ideals of rights and equality. He might adopt them as postulates.
He might retain some sort of mystical or even theistic support.
Thumper
searle) wrote:
Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
advocating "taking away" historical documents.
It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
under gosd." Your dramatic whining about all things religious is a
complete subterfuge designed tio frighten people.
Thumper
Thumper
searle) wrote:
You read again. This was NOT adopted.
Thumper
Yang
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:14:51 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
>> So, go ahead, take the Declaration and the Gettysburg address away from
>> your children, and you will soon create a country where slavery might be
>> reintroduced.
>
>Oh you mean like the slavery condoned in the bible?
"Slaves, OBEY your earthly masters.."
Colossian 3:22
So, go ahead, take the Constitution away and replace it with Biblical
theocracy, and you will relaize how slavery was introduced in the
first place.
-----
Yang
a.a.#28
rev -273.15 high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
EAC mole and other furry creature
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott
Christopher A. Lee
<wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
>What is it that you mean by saying, "The Framers of the Constitution
>got it correct when they wrote the 1st Amendment."
>
>Please explain, while keeping in mind that the First Amendment says
>that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of
>religion *or* abridging the freedom of speech." How is it that
>students in our schools, for example, repeatedly asserted their right
>to freedom of speech, yet they apply a completely opposite weight on
>that of the "free exercise of religion" which appears *before*
>"freedom of speech" in the First Amendment.
>
>Also, keep in mind, that the prohibition on Congress respecting an
>"establishment of religion" and the prohibition on abridging the "free
>exercise thereof" are two separate prohibitions.
No, they're not. You can't have freedom of religion without frreedom
from all the other religions. Remember, the country was built on the
freedom of the individual. Individuals can practise whatever religion
they want. The government cannot impose religion (not just a specific
religion) on anybody.
>Why is freedom of speech treated one way, and the free exercise of
>religion treated a completely different way? Should they not be
>treated the same?
They're not treated differently. The individual has free exercise of
religion and freedom of speech. But all the other individuals have
their freedoms too. The boundary is where one individual's freedom
abridges another's.
Unfortunately too many people in positions of authority think their
position allows them to use their freedom of speech and religion to
impose on others. Eg George Bush (private citizen) can say everybody
should be religuious but he would have to put up with what people
respond. George Bush (highest official in the government) cannot say
this, speaking as president. Unfortunately the binary thinking
extremists which include him, cannot see where one stops and the other
starts.
>If my city, for example, endorses free speech, why cannot they also
>endorse free religion on the same public property, whether it is in a
>public school or whether it is in the chambers of city hall? Should
>not both these freedoms, as stated in the first amendment, have at
>least equal weight?
Because that is an establishment of religion. It endorses religion
when it is supposed to be religiously neutral.
>And if there is to be such a separation between Church and State as
>some allege, are we then to deny a church from incorporating, knowing
>full well that a corporation is an extension of the State. And should
>we not also then deny churches from being tax exempt or receiving tax
>advantages that are nothing less than a taxpayer endorsement of the
>church by indirectly subsidizing them by allowing them to not pay
>taxes that everyone else that is not exempt must pay? -- i.e. by
>making a church exempt, more money must come out of the pockets of the
>people in order to compensate for the taxes not paid by the church,
>hence it is no different than if the church paid taxes and then
>received direct subsidies from the public treasury.
Most churches are incorporated.
>Is this what the framers really intended -- that perhaps anything
>connected with religion must be somehow practiced in the closet and
>completely out of public view; that we are to deny that and the basic
>principles under which this country and our unalienable freedoms and
>rights are founded as stated in the Declaration of Independence?
Obviously not, because that's your strawman. It's a frustrating and
dishonest debating tactic to invent a caricature that somebody didn't
say and ask them if that's what they mean. They intended religion to
be a matter of INDIVIDUAL conscience. Do you understand the difference
between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
Part of the problem is that those who wish to impose their religion on
everybody else, don't act reasonably and responsibly. They look for
what they can get away with, and complain that this isn't illegal.
Leading to too many petty rules and laws.
Ayn_R_Keey
AKA <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote
in<news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com)>
> I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most
> celebrated contribution to our nation's history has been
> undermined by two federal judges in San Francisco.
>
> From a historical perspective, I pose the following question
> regarding this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do?
>
Jefferson would be unable to do anything
residing in his cell at an unknown location,
being held illegally by the bush admin,
claiming that he was a
seditious evil-doer illegal combatant.
=============================
==1st President of the USA:==
== George Washington ==
=============================
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe
that the path of true piety is so plain
as to require but little political direction.
To this consideration we ought to ascribe
the absence of any regulation, respecting religion,
from the Magna-Charta of our country."
--George Washington
Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274---1789
answering clergymen who complained
that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen,
and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions,
ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity
according to the dictates of his own conscience."
-- George Washington,
letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"The United States of America should have
a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
--George Washington, quoted in
"2000 Years of Disbelief" by James A. Haught
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
If they are good workmen,
they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe.
They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect,
or they may be Atheists.
-- George Washington
letter to Tench Tilghman asking him
to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer
for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784,
"George Washington & Religion"--Paul F. Boller (1963) p. 118
+
+-+-+-+
+
=============================
==2nd President of the USA:==
== John Quincy Adams ==
=============================
"The question before the human race is,
whether the God of nature
shall govern the world by his own laws,
or whether priests and kings
shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
--John Quincy Adams - 1815.06.20
letter to Thomas Jefferson
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations
a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality,
as wide from the spirit of the gospel
as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth."
--John Quincy Adams
diary entry for May 27, 1838
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"As I understand the Christian religion,
it was, and is, a revelation.
But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends,
have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation
that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Quincy Adams - 1816.12.27
letter to F.A. Van der Kamp
+
+-+-+-+
+
=============================
==3rd President of the USA:==
== Thomas Jefferson ==
=============================
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was
proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A
departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in
proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan,
the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
--Thomas Jefferson--Autobiography
in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative
merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the
latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves
Christians."
--Thomas Jefferson - 1789.01.08
letter to Richard Price
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor
to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg."
---Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
--Thomas Jefferson - 1814.02.10
letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper
+
+-+-+-+
+
=============================
==4th President of the USA:==
== James Madison ==
=============================
"Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty,
may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it
needs them not."
--James Madison - 1785.06.20
"A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"
addressed to the Virginia General Assemby
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of
which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious
bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every
noble enterprise, every expanded project."
--James Madison, quoted in
"2000 Years of Disbelief" by James A. Haugh
+
+-+-+-+
+
===========
== == == ==
===============================
Other Notable Founding Patriots
===============================
"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the
Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions
called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed
Religion!"
--Thomas Paine, as quoted in
"Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine"
by Joseph Lewis
================
"The way to see by faith
is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged:
It is so; It is not so.
It is so; it is not so.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743
--
"Well,...the point is we need to make sure
that President Bush is treated
just as well as President Clinton."
----
Sen Mitch McConnell (R), Judiciary Committee
CNN CROSSFIRE - Aired March 7, 2002 - 19:30 ET
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:20:22 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty to
> > Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
> > petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
> > heeded.
>
> I was being flippant okay?
>
> However, even YOU note the RCC support of the idea.
Duh. So some in the RCC liked the phrase "under God"! Big deal. You
might be surprised to know that some in the RCC are also fans of the
Bible!! Surprise surprise!
> ironic given the religious right's hostility to the RCC.
With your logic, the fundamentalists should abhor the Bible, since the
RCC claim its their book.
ambrose searle
> theocracy, and you will relaize how slavery was introduced in the
> first place.
The judges in SF have taken away the constitution and replaced it with
an atheocracy. It's the first step toward slavery
ambrose searle
> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
shall have a new birth of freedom."
> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
> under gosd."
They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
historically, was established, "under God" according to the
Declaration, etc.
> Your dramatic whining about all things religious is a
> complete subterfuge designed tio frighten people.
Its the nonsense about right wingers trying to create a biblical
theocracy which is inflammatory rhetoric. Under God is de minimis.
Searle
ambrose searle
> Deist after Jefferson.
You're kidding, right?
Please tell these people the news: http://www.deism.com/
ambrose searle
Not because Jefferson did not try! Jefferson advocated it. The
question is "what would Jefferson do?" about God-references in the
nation's statements of self-assessment. We know what he DID. He
advocated one!
Searle
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
> > contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> > federal judges in San Francisco.
> >
> > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> > this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
> >
> > "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Jefferson indicated that
> > this phrase was originally the motto of one of the Calvinists who
> > executed King Charles I.
>
No. Calvin.
> "It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his
> doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
> preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a
> counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
> Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find
> many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely
> benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so
> much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that
> such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate,
> therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the
> latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of
> this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the
> first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short,
> 1820
So Jefferson didn't agree with Jesus Christ on all matters. What does
that have to do with whether Jefferson believed phrases like "under
God" were inappropriate for the nation's self-identity?
> > 2) In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that the
> > equality of people is a "sacred truth," and that all of our human
> > rights come from "our Creator." The two federal judges in San
> > Francisco have effectively decided that it is unconstitutional for a
> > school teacher to assert that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
> > is valid!
>
> "Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every
> opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if
> there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded
> fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its
> consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find
> incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its
> exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you"
> (Jefferson's Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
So does that nullify the Declaration?
> > 3) Jefferson asked this very relevant question given the two federal
> > judges' decision: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
> > when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
> > of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
>
> "The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one,
Where does the Pledge of Allegiance mention the trinity?
> > Some might say that Jefferson is not the one to consult; rather, we
> > must consult Madison, the chief architect of the constitution and the
> > principal author of the first amendment.
> >
> > Okay, let's.
> >
> > "The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
> > moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
> > which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted
> > with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to
> > be impressed with it."
> >
> > James Madison to Frederick Beasley, Nov. 20, 1825
>
> "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
How does the Pledge make an ecclesiastical establishment? Which church
is established by the Pledge?
> One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection
> with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the
> following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a
> friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it
> "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts;
> that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental
> Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services,
> went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs.
> Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I
> considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy
> tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who
> uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I
> acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he
> received it" (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by
> Remsberg, pp. 104-105).
What the heck does Washington's view of the Lord's supper have to do
with the Pledge of Allegiance???
Do you know what a strawman is?
> > Furthermore, Dr. Docherty, the man behind adding "under God" to the
> > Pledge, stated it thus:
> >
> > "It was feared that the newly worded Pledge forced atheistic citizens
> > to pledge allegiance to God. I argued that they pledged allegiance not
> > to God, but to the flag. The phrase under God describes the historic
> > fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in
> > divine providence."
> >
> > George Docherty, I've Seen the Day, p. 160
> >
> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> > are lousy historians at best.
> >
> > Searle
>
> When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the
> blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution
> was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was
> absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by
> Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question
> was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and
> after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.
Dead wrong.
As a matter of fact, some of the framers were concerned that some
buffoon might come along and think that the first amendment was
"voting God out of the Constitution" and sure enough, you have.
Here is the relevant part of the transcript--
August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress
The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.
The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:
Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no
religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.
Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of
expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable
to a construction different from what had been made by the committee.
He feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether...
Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on
this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be
extremely hurtful to the cause of religion...
Mr. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before
religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He
believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence,
or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they
would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was
introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was
intended to prevent.
What they "voted out" of the Constitution was not God, but a national
church.
Period.
Searle
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
> > contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
> > federal judges in San Francisco.
> >
> > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> > this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>
>
> Arguing from authority is a logical fallacy.
You show an vast ignorance of both constitutional interpretation and
logical fallacies.
With regard to constitutional interpretation, it has been the practice
of the Supreme Court to consult Jefferson on the question of
church/state separation. Do you think that the Supreme Court is out of
line in that regard?
With regard to logical fallacies, arguing from authority is only a
fallacy when the authority is not an expert in the field being
considered.
see argumentum ad verecundiam
(http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rfreeman/CHAPTER3.html)
Searle
ambrose searle
Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
statement??
If not, then you permit me, as an agent of the public school, to tell
students that their rights are derived from their Creator.
If so, then you want me to tell students that the fundamental
principles upon which the U.S. was founded are invalid.
Searle
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> news:<uhp0ot5...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:20:22 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty
>> > to Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
>> > petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
>> > heeded.
>>
>> I was being flippant okay?
>>
>> However, even YOU note the RCC support of the idea.
>
> Duh. So some in the RCC liked the phrase "under God"! Big deal. You
> might be surprised to know that some in the RCC are also fans of the
> Bible!! Surprise surprise!
Dude, stop rolling around on the floor, foaming at the mouth. I was
talking about irony okay? Sheesh.
>> ironic given the religious right's hostility to the RCC.
>
> With your logic, the fundamentalists should abhor the Bible, since the
> RCC claim its their book.
It's more "politics makes strange bed fellows." As in the alliances
between the fundies and the radical Muslims in the UN.
By the way, this Docherty guy appears to be alive still. I read some
comments of his and *he* makes it quite clear his intent was violation of
separation. Quite undermining your case, by the way.
For example: "'But to say that the word "God" is unconstitutional is
heretical,' said the native of Scotland."
And: "So for example, if an atheist wants to come to this country
and be a citizen of the United States, he starts by saying the Pledge of
Allegiance," Mr. Docherty said. "And if it says 'God,' that's too bad for
him."
Docherty INTENDED exactly what the First Amendment *prohibits:
establishment.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020628-26247314.htm
Thumper
searle) wrote:
>> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
>> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
>
>Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
>Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>
We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God.
"
>If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
>shall have a new birth of freedom."
>
Irrelevant
>> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
>
>It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
>
No it didn't.
>> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
>> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
>> under gosd."
>
>They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
>historically, was established, "under God" according to the
>Declaration, etc.
>
You are wrong.
Thumper
searle) wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
>> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you understand the difference
>> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
>> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
>
>Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
>telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
>statement??
>
I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
document is absolutely true.
>If not, then you permit me, as an agent of the public school, to tell
>students that their rights are derived from their Creator.
>
>If so, then you want me to tell students that the fundamental
>principles upon which the U.S. was founded are invalid.
>
No. I want you to tell them that some of the fore fathers felt that
way. Not to tell them that they were correct.
Thumper
>Searle
Dana
> On 29 Jun 2002 19:35:16 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> searle) wrote:
>
> >> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
> >> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
> >
> >Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
> >Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
> >
>
> We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
> bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
> being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God.
No one is forcing them to say the pledge.
> "
> >If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
> >shall have a new birth of freedom."
> >
>
> Irrelevant
Not according to your logic.
> >> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
> >
> >It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
> >
> No it didn't.
>
> >> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
> >> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
> >> under gosd."
> >
> >They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
> >historically, was established, "under God" according to the
> >Declaration, etc.
> >
> You are wrong.
Yes you are.
Dana
> On 29 Jun 2002 20:36:39 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> searle) wrote:
>
> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
> >> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you understand the difference
> >> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
> >> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
> >
> >Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
> >telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
> >statement??
> >
>
> I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
> document is absolutely true.
In other words he wants to dictate what you can and cannot say.
> >If not, then you permit me, as an agent of the public school, to tell
> >students that their rights are derived from their Creator.
> >
> >If so, then you want me to tell students that the fundamental
> >principles upon which the U.S. was founded are invalid.
> >
> No. I want you to tell them that some of the fore fathers felt that
> way. Not to tell them that they were correct.
Look at him spin. This is very funny.
> Thumper
>
> >Searle
>
maff
> In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
> <for...@bout.it> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >
> > > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
> > > are lousy historians at best.
> >
>
> A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> was written by a socialist.
Yep.
http://userpages.aug.com/haywire/poahis.html
>
> -chib
ambrose searle
> searle) wrote:
>
> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
> >> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you understand the difference
> >> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
> >> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
> >
> >Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
> >telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
> >statement??
>
> I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
> document is absolutely true.
Thank you for your honesty; hopefully views like yours will come to
light in the public sphrere, especially in the high courts.
You admit that you want a teacher to pick-and-choose the parts of the
declaration he or she agrees with: the whole "created equal" thing is
okay with you, but nix the part about where that equality comes from!!
The right to resist tyranny is probably a fundamental principle in
your book, but forbid teachers to agree with Jefferson that it is part
of God's natural law. You want teachers to support our nation, but you
don't want them to admit that those who established it relied firmly
upon the "protection of divine providence," and appealed to the
"Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions."
You want every teacher to set himself up as a Supreme Court in himself
deciding which parts of the U.S. Code is valid and which parts are
invalid, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court itself hasn't
done so.
I say this because the Declaration of Independence is part of the U.S.
Code, and the Supreme Court has NEVER declared a word of it
unconstitutional.
You see, the problem is that if one teacher is allowed to play
pick-and-choose with the Declaration, why shouldn't a different
teacher get to pick-and-choose otherwise, saying "well, that whole
equality thing is a bunch of bunk, that was a farce of a few founders,
but the business about Divine Providence, now that's what we as
Americans are all about!"
You want every teacher to pick-and-choose the parts of the Declaration
to tell students is valid, but you want to be sure they are the same
parts that YOU would pick-and-choose.
Your views are transparent, and they show what nonsense people with
this kind of view end up promoting.
> >If so, then you want me to tell students that the fundamental
> >principles upon which the U.S. was founded are invalid.
>
> No. I want you to tell them that some of the fore fathers felt that
> way. Not to tell them that they were correct.
Then why not just say "some of the forefathers felt that all men are
created equal, but, kids, that's not correct." Why not just tell them
that the foundation upon which the U.S. was built is wrong, and thus
say to them: "The United States is an invalid political entity, our
basic charter is a bogus document"?
I'll tell you why a teacher can't say that: because public teachers
swear upon an oath not to teach treason.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:26:39 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> > news:<uhp0ot5...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:20:22 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>
> >> > The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty
> >> > to Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
> >> > petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
> >> > heeded.
> >>
> >> I was being flippant okay?
Nope, you were simply uninformed about history. Like many atheists,
you simply had your facts wrong.
> By the way, this Docherty guy appears to be alive still.
Indeed. He is a dear friend. I will see him in about an hour from now.
> I read some
> comments of his and *he* makes it quite clear his intent was violation of
> separation. Quite undermining your case, by the way.
Never.
> For example: "'But to say that the word "God" is unconstitutional is
> heretical,' said the native of Scotland."
Docherty would also say that a lot of things we do these days is
heretical: that's his parliance for "out of bounds." He would say that
driving a big car is heretical, that eating fast food is heretical,
and that watching too much TV is heretical.
Does that mean that if he supported congressional efforts to curtail
the wastes of SUV's his intent would clearly be a violation of
separation??
> And: "So for example, if an atheist wants to come to this country
> and be a citizen of the United States, he starts by saying the Pledge of
> Allegiance," Mr. Docherty said. "And if it says 'God,' that's too bad for
> him."
Right on!! Because, as Docherty says, the historical fact cannot be
taken away. According to the Declaration, our nation was founded upon
a belief in a Creator who gives us our rights... that's pure history.
What you want is for us to lie about our history. That's typical
atheism for you: lying.
> Docherty INTENDED exactly what the First Amendment *prohibits:
> establishment.
Docherty wants the establishment of what church??
He'll be very curious to know.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On 29 Jun 2002 19:35:16 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> searle) wrote:
>
> >> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
> >> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
> >
> >Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
> >Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>
> We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
> bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
> being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God."
The question then is what the teacher is permitted to say about old
Mr. Lincoln: was he right? or is it just his "opinion" that men should
fight to the death to end slavery.
Or, will you as usual, say that the teacher should say that Lincoln
was right in those matters where he agrees with atheists, but wrong in
those matters where he is clearly promoting theism.
> >If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
> >shall have a new birth of freedom."
>
> Irrelevant
Fully relevant. It's there in the document. Lincoln believed it. Most
teachers are wont to teach that Lincoln was a great man and a great
mind who had great ideas. Perhaps you want to forbid teachers from
taking that view.
> >> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
> >
> >It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
>
> No it didn't.
It ABSOLUTELY did. Have you never read Frederick Douglass' writings?
He attributed his liberty to the religious principles of the Quakers!
You don't think his liberty mattered a lot to him? You are lost.
> >> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
> >> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
> >> under gosd."
> >
> >They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
> >historically, was established, "under God" according to the
> >Declaration, etc.
>
> You are wrong.
Read the pledge. Where does it say "I pledge to God"? The pledge is
made to the flag and to the nation that the flag stands for!!!
The fact that the nation was established under God is a historical
reality that lying about wont change.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:55:24 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
> > Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
> > constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
> > Thunder;
>
> Then you won't mind if we as a nation reaffirm our heritage and change
> the pledge to "under Thor" right?
"God" is generic. If you want to think of Thor when that word is used,
by all means knock yourself out.
The founders most often spoke of God, the Supreme Judge, Divine
Providence, the Heavenly host, the Almighty, etc.
That was the entity whom they trusted to give them success in their
endeavors; that is the entity under whom this nation was established.
Searle
Mz B
> created equal, but, kids, that's not correct."
Oddly enough, my high school history teacher told us something very similar.
Everyone is NOT created equal. Some people are smarter or stronger or just
plain better looking. This led to a very thought-provoking class discussion
regarding the intent of the forefathers, not just rote memorization of the
words.
See, I had a teacher who made me think.
K
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:20:22 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty to
> > Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
> > petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
> > heeded.
>
> I was being flippant okay?
It's not good to lie in order to cover up for your mistakes. You said
that the idea of "Under God" was a "papalist" idea.
That's available in the record for all to see.
http://groups.google.com/groups?lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=uhnpng7lij6h51%40corp.supernews.com
You were wrong about the origin of the idea, and the word "papalist"
isn't even a word.
Now, in order to save face, you say, "Aw, I was just kidding; I know
my history, I know that Lincoln and Docherty were the conduits from
whom the idea passed to the Congress."
You history is bad (just like a couple of fellows in S.F.) and you're
lying to cover it up is worse.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:55:24 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> >> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
> >> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
> >>
> >> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >
> > invented that phrase in 1954, then you are deluded. The phrase was
> > lifted from the Gettysburg Address by Docherty on Lincoln Sunday, Feb.
> > 7, 1954. Ike liked the sermon and got the wheels rolling in Congress the
> > next day.
>
> The phrase still had to be *added. Some sixty years after the pledge was
> written.
Who cares if it was added? What's wrong with adding something?
A lot of American principles are added to pre-existing literature. The
13th, 14th, and 15th amendments against slavery and for citizenship
rights were ADDED some 80 years after the Constitution was written.
Does that somehow diminish their validity??
> > "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> > would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!! Heck,
> > Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> > Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
>
> Idiot. The point is that school children are being led in an endorsement
> of monotheism at state run schools. I see no reason for such
> indoctrination to take place at taxpayer expense.
If we teach children that the Gettyburg Address was a valid and
valuable statement, then we are indeed endorsing "this nation under
God."
You, of course, don't want us teachers to be able to say that the
Gettysburg Address was valid.
> > Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
> > Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
> > constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
> > Thunder; January is from the Greek god Janus, the god who looks both
> > forward and backward, and the number 2002... well that has something to
> > do with that horrific being, Jesus Christ (Domini).
> >
> > Thus, the only thing left for the teacher to write is "Today is 3."
> >
> > And I wouldn't be surprised if Arabic numerals originally derived from
> > some religious function.
> >
> > You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
> > Western culture.
> >
> > If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
> > unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
> > principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
> >
> > Searle
>
> Do you people get any denser? Or have we found the limit yet?
Is that supposed to be a reasoned response to my point? You might want
to go online and look up the phrase "ad hominem." That's what this
statement of your amounts to.
> I still see no reason that school children should be reciting an oath
> that involves a blatant endorsement of monotheism.
It involves acknowledging a historical reality. But you atheists want
us to lie about our history because it doesn't suit your agenda.
History doesn't change for agendas.
> No wonder our test scores are some of the lowest in the Western world.
> People are too busy fretting over kids chanting loyalty oaths in school
> rather than how much math they learned.
Whose been busy doing the fretting??? If CNN is correct it was an
atheist who was the PLAINTIFF (viz., fretter) in San Francisco. Most
have been busy with more important issues than fretting about trying
to change the facts of history.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:55:24 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>
> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
> > news:<uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
> >> > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San
> >> > Francisco are lousy historians at best.
> >>
> >> Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >
> > If you are under the impression that Docherty, Ike, or the Congress
> > invented that phrase in 1954, then you are deluded. The phrase was
> > lifted from the Gettysburg Address by Docherty on Lincoln Sunday, Feb.
> > 7, 1954. Ike liked the sermon and got the wheels rolling in Congress the
> > next day.
>
>
> The above paragraph of yours is just plain stupd.
Now there's a powerful piece of reasoning. Great argument there.
> I'm well aware that the
> phrase was not "invented" at the time. My point was that it was
> *inserted by congress and some six decades after the pledge was written.
So. Women's right to vote was inserted into the constitution. Does
that make it less valid?
> Now you spend a lot of time below babbling about cultural/historical
> artifacts, throwing red herrings all *over the place. The phrase, notice,
> also did NOT accrete into the pledge by some cultural process over
> history. It was PUT into the pledge by the congress. Which makes this
> issue properly something the courts can review.
No argument there. The courts can review it all they want. But for the
courts to deny the fact that Lincoln used this phrase in describing
the nation is, as you say "Just plain wrong (stupid)"
> > "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> > would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!! Heck,
> > Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> > Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
>
> This is a total dishonesty on your part. The issue before the court was
> not--and the issue never has been--"anything that has a religious
> origin." You are deliberately and disingeniously obfuscating the issue.
The issue is whether a religious reference in the pledge equals an
endorsement of religion. It does not. No more than the use of
Wednesday is an endorsement of Woden, god of War.
> Again you disingeniously obfuscate cultural/historical artifacts with
> acts of the congress. As if the insertion of "under god" just sort of
> "happened" rather than being placed there with religious motivations by a
> body restrained by the constitution from endorsing any religious view.
I know good and well what motivated Dr. Docherty and his friends in
Congress. It wasn't what you say it was. Read his Autobiography. He is
no right-wing religious man.
> > You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
> > Western culture.
>
> Another red herring. The issue is state endorsement.
There is no endorsement of a church in the Pledge.
> > If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
> > unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
> > principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
>
> Another dishonest red herring. Try to stay focused on the issue to hand.
An endorsement of the Declaration is an endorsement of the
acknowledgement of the Creator.
> Congress inserted an endorsement of monotheism into the pledge. Is it
> proper they endorse any particular religious view?
They should endorse their own fundamental principles, as found in
places like the Declaration.
Searle
Thomas P.
>
>"Thumper" <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:dlathugh92s75dgf4...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 19:35:16 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
>> >> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
>> >
>> >Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
>> >Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>> >
>>
>> We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
>> bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
>> being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God.
>
>No one is forcing them to say the pledge.
One assumes you would have nothing against standing silently in a
classroom while others pledged allegiance to Allah or to Satan. After
all you would not be forced to say anything.
>> "
>> >If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
>> >shall have a new birth of freedom."
>> >
>>
>> Irrelevant
>
>Not according to your logic.
Learning the words of a document and confirming every idea in it is
not the same thing. If it was it would be impossible for children to
learn any history.
>
>> >> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
>> >
>> >It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
>> >
>> No it didn't.
>>
>> >> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
>> >> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
>> >> under gosd."
>> >
>> >They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
>> >historically, was established, "under God" according to the
>> >Declaration, etc.
>> >
>> You are wrong.
>
>Yes you are.
First of all, the US was not established under the Declaration of
Independence. Furthermore you will not find the phrase "under God" in
in.
Thomas P.
Duke,you incredible idiot, you make yourself more of a joke with each post.
Duke's response:
"When you can do better, let me know."
Thomas P.
I am looking, but I don't see any spinning. People should learn the
history of their country. There is no reason that that process should
include the confirmation of every word in every historical document of
their country, or do you disagree?
>
>> Thumper
>>
>> >Searle
Thomas P.
searle) wrote:
>Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<6tathuc10tit4sp0d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 20:36:39 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
>> >> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do you understand the difference
>> >> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
>> >> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
>> >
>> >Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
>> >telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
>> >statement??
>>
>> I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
>> document is absolutely true.
>
>Thank you for your honesty; hopefully views like yours will come to
>light in the public sphrere, especially in the high courts.
>
>You admit that you want a teacher to pick-and-choose the parts of the
>declaration he or she agrees with: the whole "created equal" thing is
>okay with you, but nix the part about where that equality comes from!!
Could you point out where that was said?
>The right to resist tyranny is probably a fundamental principle in
>your book, but forbid teachers to agree with Jefferson that it is part
>of God's natural law. You want teachers to support our nation, but you
>don't want them to admit that those who established it relied firmly
>upon the "protection of divine providence," and appealed to the
>"Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions."
Once again, would you mind pointing out where that was said?
>
>You want every teacher to set himself up as a Supreme Court in himself
>deciding which parts of the U.S. Code is valid and which parts are
>invalid, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court itself hasn't
>done so.
>
>I say this because the Declaration of Independence is part of the U.S.
>Code,
What do you mean by the "US Code"? It certainly is not part of the US
Constitution or of any law.
>and the Supreme Court has NEVER declared a word of it
>unconstitutional.
Why would they? It is not a law. No case based on it could be
brought before the court.
>
>You see, the problem is that if one teacher is allowed to play
>pick-and-choose with the Declaration, why shouldn't a different
>teacher get to pick-and-choose otherwise, saying "well, that whole
>equality thing is a bunch of bunk, that was a farce of a few founders,
>but the business about Divine Providence, now that's what we as
>Americans are all about!"
>
>You want every teacher to pick-and-choose the parts of the Declaration
>to tell students is valid, but you want to be sure they are the same
>parts that YOU would pick-and-choose.
>
>Your views are transparent, and they show what nonsense people with
>this kind of view end up promoting.
Does it bother you at all that the above is a complete strawman?
snip
ambrose searle
I endorse the historical reality of the "under God" clause of the
Pledge, and I also am glad to mention that Bellamy is classified a
Christian Utopian Socialist.
Of couse, many would call Jesus a socialist as well.
The "right wing nutcase" allegation is smoke-blowing on your part.
Searle
ambrose searle
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:48:44 GMT, ambrose searle,
> AKA <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in<news:fe9a0c54.02062...@posting.google.com)>
>
> > I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most
> > celebrated contribution to our nation's history has been
> > undermined by two federal judges in San Francisco.
> >
> > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question
> > regarding this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do?
>
> residing in his cell at an unknown location,
> being held illegally by the bush admin,
The evidence is that the authorities holding him for advocating a
religious motto would be the Federal court in San Francisco.
> --George Washington
> Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274---1789
> answering clergymen who complained
> that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ
I haven't heard similar complaints about Jesus not being mentioned in
the pledge.
> "Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen,
> and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions,
> ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity
> according to the dictates of his own conscience."
>
> -- George Washington,
> letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
GW wanted to protect different modes of worshipping the Deity. Now
show me where GW wanted to protect those who rejected religion
altogether.
> "The United States of America should have
> a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
>
> --George Washington, quoted in
> "2000 Years of Disbelief" by James A. Haught
Does that mean that Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson, et al,
have no place in America's life?
> If they are good workmen,
> they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe.
> They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect,
> or they may be Atheists.
>
> -- George Washington
> letter to Tench Tilghman asking him
> to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer
> for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784,
> "George Washington & Religion"--Paul F. Boller (1963) p. 118
He was talking about hiring BRICKLAYERS!! He was stating the obvious:
the religion of a BRICKLAYER is irrelevant to building a house.
Nothing to do with the nature of the U.S.A. Red Herring. Strawman.
> =============================
> ==2nd President of the USA:==
> == John Quincy Adams ==
> =============================
Typical atheist historian!! John Quincy Adams was NOT the second
president of the U.S.A. He did not follow George Washington, who, you
probably don't know, was the 1st president under the Constitution.
John Quincy Adams followed Monroe, and was the 6th president.
> "The question before the human race is,
> whether the God of nature
> shall govern the world by his own laws,
> or whether priests and kings
> shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
>
> --John Quincy Adams - 1815.06.20
> letter to Thomas Jefferson
You, like many atheists who post here, are lying about quotes.
I have here a record of all the correspondence of John Quincy Adams,
and he never wrote a letter to Jefferson in 1815.
Period.
What else will you make up?
> "There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations
> a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality,
> as wide from the spirit of the gospel
> as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth."
>
> --John Quincy Adams
> diary entry for May 27, 1838
What does JQA's opinion of clergyman have to do with whether indeed
the U.S. was established under God?
> "As I understand the Christian religion,
> it was, and is, a revelation.
> But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends,
> have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation
> that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
>
> -- John Quincy Adams - 1816.12.27
> letter to F.A. Van der Kamp
Another bogus quote. Another atheist lie.
John Quincy Adams wrote no letter to F.A. Van der Kamp in 1816.
What else do you want to fabricate.
> =============================
> ==3rd President of the USA:==
> == Thomas Jefferson ==
> =============================
>
> "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
> the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was
> proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A
> departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
> religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in
> proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its
> protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan,
> the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
Jefferson didn't want to change "the Holy Author of our religion" to
"Jesus Christ" but he sure did advocate keeping the language "the Holy
Author of our religion," as well as "Our Savior."
Will you be satisfied then, if we take under God out of the pledge and
replace it with Jefferson's preferred phrase: One nation, under the
Holy Author of our religion,...
> "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative
> merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the
> latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves
> Christians."
>
> --Thomas Jefferson - 1789.01.08
> letter to Richard Price
Right on. Jefferson indeed believed atheism and demonism were about
the same thing, and he rightly reflected that many Christians are
closet atheists.
> "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
> are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor
> to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my
> pocket nor breaks my leg."
>
> ---Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"
Thank you for quoting Jefferson to this atheist in San Francisco who
thinks that he is "injured" by hearing it asserted that there is a
God. It does him no injury according to Jefferson.
> Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
>
> --Thomas Jefferson - 1814.02.10
> letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper
Jefferson was simply wrong about that. See Harold Berman's (Harvard
Law Prof.) scholarly books on the subject. Otherwise, read the Supreme
Court's opinion in this regard: "Christianity, is, and always has
been, a part of the common law"
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511,
36 L.Ed. 226 February 29, 1892
> =============================
> ==4th President of the USA:==
> == James Madison ==
> =============================
>
> "Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty,
> may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
> A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it
> needs them not."
Who wants an established clergy?
> "Ecclesiastical establishments
I definitely dont want ecclesiastical establishments.
> ===============================
> Other Notable Founding Patriots
> ===============================
> "Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the
> Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions
> called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed
> Religion!"
>
> --Thomas Paine, as quoted in
> "Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine"
Do you know what the founders thought of Paine's religious views?
> "The way to see by faith
> is to shut the eye of reason."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
Sounds like Kierkegaard
> Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged:
> It is so; It is not so.
> It is so; it is not so.
sounds like disputes among atheists too
In short, you have offered bogus quotes, lies, irrelevancies, but
nothing of substance.
Searle
ambrose searle
> Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1BE0B8...@krulick.com...
> > ambrose searle wrote:
> > ...
> > > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
> > > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
> >
> > consider the other side:
>
> Even so, it is irrelevant.
>
> Even if every founding father was an active Christian, that no way implies
> that they wanted the USA to be. Citing personal correspondence to "prove"
> they were religious in no way undermines the fact that when they wrote the
> official American documents, they left God out of it.
Sounds like you need to tell the Federal Government that the
Declaration of Independence is not an official American Document. They
haven't learned that yet.
The government includes it in the U.S. Code.
It is cited frequently by the Supreme Court as an authoritative
statement of U.S. principles.
And please tell the Marine guard who stands by it in the National
Archives to lighten up a little since the Declaration is not really an
official American Document.
And Lincoln, of course, was out of line when he claimed that the
founders were explicitly dedicated to the Declaration of Independence.
Or perhaps you think that God is indeed left out of the Declaration:
perhaps you think that the Supreme Judge of the World is William
Rehnquist? Perhaps you think that when Jefferson said "endowed by our
Creator" he meant whatever Doctor delivers us at birth. Perhaps
"Divine Providence" was the name of a female bodyguard who stood
outside of Independence Hall, and thats who was meant by "a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
You are another atheist who knows too little about history.
Searle
ambrose searle
> Verily, verily, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> sayeth unto us:
>
> > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
> > >
> > > > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for
> > > > adding "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in
> > > > San Francisco are lousy historians at best.
> > >
> > > Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
> >
> > A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
> > nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
> > was written by a socialist.
>
You are another atheist who is a lousy historian. Catholics didn't
"add" anything to the pledge. Congress added "under God" at the behest
of a Presbyterian clergyman.
> /| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
> \| Pastor Frank
> M. Clark
> CaptainKIRKusa1
> ==> VISIT MY STORE: http://www.cafepress.com/nojesus <==
Here is a list of posters who failed the History test--
You
Mark Bilbo
Therion Ware
ambrose searle
ambrose searle
Thumper
>
>"Thumper" <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:6tathuc10tit4sp0d...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 20:36:39 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
>> >> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do you understand the difference
>> >> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
>> >> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
>> >
>> >Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
>> >telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
>> >statement??
>> >
>>
>> I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
>> document is absolutely true.
>
>In other words he wants to dictate what you can and cannot say.
>
Here's Dana, the village idiot again. You really are a moron. It is
against hte law for a representative of the government to teach
religion in a public school.
Thumper
Thumper
searle) wrote:
>Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<6tathuc10tit4sp0d...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 20:36:39 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<7nhohu84pjaonhpa8...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:26:58 GMT, "Wayne J. Barbarek"
>> >> <wa...@documentsillustrative.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do you understand the difference
>> >> between a person acting as an individual. and the same person acting
>> >> as an agent of the government in an official capacity?
>> >
>> >Do you want to forbid me, as a public high school teacher, from
>> >telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
>> >statement??
>>
>> I want to prevent you from telling them that everything in the
>> document is absolutely true.
>
>Thank you for your honesty; hopefully views like yours will come to
>light in the public sphrere, especially in the high courts.
>
>You admit that you want a teacher to pick-and-choose the parts of the
>declaration he or she agrees with: the whole "created equal" thing is
>okay with you, but nix the part about where that equality comes from!!
If you really are a teacher you are a sorry excuse for one because you
cannot read with comprehension. I said no such thing. I said that
you can teach the students the words of the Declaration but cannot say
that the belief s about religion that the writer ghad are true. Are
you really an idiot or are you making a weak attempt at deliberately
mis-representing what I said?
>The right to resist tyranny is probably a fundamental principle in
>your book, but forbid teachers to agree with Jefferson that it is part
>of God's natural law.
I forbid no such thing. Teachers can agree with Jefferson all they
want. The cannot however teach the students that his beliefs regardin
religion are true.
I'm not responding to each and every misrepresentation of my words
because I can only surmise that you are actually well aware that I did
not say the things you said I did. You sir are a liar and ot avery
clever one as my words are here for everyone to see. Playing stupid
won't get you off the hook for lying.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
That's good but the teacher wasn't talking about religion, was he/she?
Thumper
Thumper
Thumper
searle) wrote:
Red herring alert!
>> And: "So for example, if an atheist wants to come to this country
>> and be a citizen of the United States, he starts by saying the Pledge of
>> Allegiance," Mr. Docherty said. "And if it says 'God,' that's too bad for
>> him."
>
>Right on!! Because, as Docherty says, the historical fact cannot be
>taken away. According to the Declaration, our nation was founded upon
>a belief in a Creator who gives us our rights... that's pure history.
>
That's pure bullshit. SOME of the founders had those beliefs. Some
just wanted to be able to make money without oppressive taxation, and
many had other reasons. That's why the framers of the constitution
left God out of it. That and the pre-cognitive ability they had to
see that people like you would try to use the government to make
others affirm their faith in God.
Thumper
jal...@cox.net
>:|I woke up this morning to discover that Dr. Docherty's most celebrated
>:|contribution to our nation's history has been undermined by two
>:|federal judges in San Francisco.
Ahhhhhhh, ambrose searle/richard gardiner the troll is back to his old
stomping grounds. I wondered how long it would take him to show up in his
old newsgroups.
All he would have to do is drop alt.atheism from the newsgroups and there
would be deafening silence in the other newsgroups of that list above.
Since the "under God" was added long after the colonial period and the rev
war period, what are you doing here gardiner?
[snipping the trolling aspects of his post]
>:|Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>:|"under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
>:|are lousy historians at best.
LOL what a crock of garbage. But then that is what gardiner is about.
>:|
>:|Searle
Searle/Gardiner
Thumper
searle) wrote:
>Thumper <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<dlathugh92s75dgf4...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 19:35:16 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
>> >> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
>> >
>> >Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
>> >Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>>
>> We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
>> bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
>> being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God."
>
>The question then is what the teacher is permitted to say about old
>Mr. Lincoln: was he right? or is it just his "opinion" that men should
>fight to the death to end slavery.
RED HERRING. Not about the 2nd amendment.
>
>Or, will you as usual, say that the teacher should say that Lincoln
>was right in those matters where he agrees with atheists, but wrong in
>those matters where he is clearly promoting theism.
>
Neither. He was right in opposing slavery and wrong in other things.
One can agree with an atheist about slavery without agreeing with
atheism. Are you certain you are a teacher or did I misunderstand
you. you did intimate that you were a teacher didn't you?
>> >If so, they'll have to say that awful phrase, "this nation, under God,
>> >shall have a new birth of freedom."
>>
>> Irrelevant
>
>Fully relevant. It's there in the document. Lincoln believed it. Most
>teachers are wont to teach that Lincoln was a great man and a great
>mind who had great ideas. Perhaps you want to forbid teachers from
>taking that view.
>
You must be truly stupid. Teachers can take any view they want. they
just can't teach it.
>> >> It also doesn't matter if aboltionists were religiously motovated.
>> >
>> >It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
>>
>> No it didn't.
>
>It ABSOLUTELY did. Have you never read Frederick Douglass' writings?
>He attributed his liberty to the religious principles of the Quakers!
>You don't think his liberty mattered a lot to him? You are lost.
You are way off on a tangent. we are talking about THE GOVERNMENT
endorsing religion. Not what Frederick Douglas believed.
I believe you are deliberately going astray. If not you must have a
problem holding one thought.
>> >> What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
>> >> compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
>> >> under gosd."
>> >
>> >They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
>> >historically, was established, "under God" according to the
>> >Declaration, etc.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
>Read the pledge. Where does it say "I pledge to God"? The pledge is
>made to the flag and to the nation that the flag stands for!!!
Sure. So far so good but then it goes on to describe that nation as
"one nation under God." That is the Government endorsing religion.
It's illegal
>
>The fact that the nation was established under God is a historical
>reality that lying about wont change.
>
You can believe what you want. Others disagree and the government has
to stay neutral in this regard.
Thumper
Thumper
searle) wrote:
I don't give a FF whom they most often spoke of. What about when they
didn't speak of God?
They quite conciously wrote an amendment to prohbit the majority via
the Government from endorsing religion in any way.
Thumper
J&S
"ambrose searle"
> > > "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> > > would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!!
Heck,
> > > Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> > > Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
Ummm teaching about the men of history and their beliefs is not
unconstitutional, state endorsement of religion is...
As to Jefferson mentioning god, he seemed to have only bad words for your
god.
"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same
as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian
god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If
one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like
god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say
they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
So which are you? or have you managed to be both? For extra credit, tell us
how a deists beliefs differ from your evil sky pixie...
Silas
jal...@cox.net
>:|On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:26:39 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>:|
>:|> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
>:|> news:<uhp0ot5...@corp.supernews.com>...
>:|>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:20:22 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> > The phrase "under God" was introduced by the Rev. Dr. George Docherty
>:|>> > to Dwight Eisenhower, on Feb. 7, 1954. The KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS had
>:|>> > petitioned and written letters prior to that time, but they were not
>:|>> > heeded.
>:|>>
>:|>> I was being flippant okay?
>:|>>
>:|>> However, even YOU note the RCC support of the idea.
>:|>
>:|> Duh. So some in the RCC liked the phrase "under God"! Big deal. You
>:|> might be surprised to know that some in the RCC are also fans of the
>:|> Bible!! Surprise surprise!
>:|
>:|Dude, stop rolling around on the floor, foaming at the mouth. I was
>:|talking about irony okay? Sheesh.
>:|
You have to understand who you are dealing with here.
ambrose searle/richard gardiner
For the better part of 18 months he played the troll posting game in this
and other such newsgroups from March 1999 to End of September 2000. He
bounced back after completing his latest round of schooling, it appears,
in May of this year.
Ask any of the regulars in alt.history.colonial
soc.history.war.us-revolution about him. I am sure they would be happy to
tell you about him even if he is using a different name this time.
of course, lucky for them, they aren't reading him probably, most regulars
there have things set up that anything over two newsgroups and they block
the posts and replies.
If you want to know more about him and his style do a google search for
Richard Gardiner and for Ambrose Searle.
====================================================
This will help give you an idea who and what he is about:
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:15:58 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=096ufuko4g9kh6m86trv79lua8v615jgfq%404ax.com&output=gplain
Dana
The 1st Amendment only says the gvt will not establish a state religion, and
that the state could not prohibit the expression of religion.
Dana
news:u6IT8.4690$FG5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "ambrose searle"
> > > > "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like
you
> > > > would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!!
> Heck,
> > > > Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is
unconstitutional!
> > > > Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
>
>
> Ummm teaching about the men of history and their beliefs is not
> unconstitutional, state endorsement of religion is...
> As to Jefferson mentioning god, he seemed to have only bad words for your
> god.
You need to do more research.
To Miles King, 26 September 1814 (L&B 14:197-8):
He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of His state, He
can feel pain or pleasure in anything we may do; He is far above our power;
but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in
society, by acting honestly towards all, respecting sacredly their rights,
bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as
we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which
produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by One whom you and I
equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. Our particular
principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone. I
inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in
this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes, are
exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or
a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in
heaven; that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind,
and find ourselves united in those principles only in which God has united
us all.
To Rev. Jared Sparks, 4 November 1820 (L&B 15:288):
I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure,
benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to
the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as
corruptions of His religion, having no foundation in what came from Him. The
metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my
understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only
by being more unintelligible. THe religion of Jesus is founded in the Unity
of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of
heathen gods then acknowledged. Thinking men of all nations rallied readily
to the doctrine of one only God, and embraced it with the pure morals which
Jesus inculcated. If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in
theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of
public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism, and the genuine
doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by His pseudo-priests, will again be
restored to their original purity. This reformation will advance with the
other improvements of the human mind, but too late for me to witness it.
Ayn_R_Keey
AKA <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote
in<news:fe9a0c54.02063...@posting.google.com)>
> Typical atheist historian!! John Quincy Adams was NOT the second
> president of the U.S.A. He did not follow George Washington,
> who, you probably don't know, was the 1st president under the
> Constitution.
>
I know
WHO SHOULD BE THE 43 PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!
> John Quincy Adams followed Monroe, and was the 6th president.
>
>> "The question before the human race is,
>> whether the God of nature
>> shall govern the world by his own laws,
>> or whether priests and kings
>> shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
>>
>> --John Quincy Adams - 1815.06.20
>> letter to Thomas Jefferson
>
> You, like many atheists who post here, are lying about quotes.
>
> I have here a record of all the correspondence of John Quincy
> Adams, and he never wrote a letter to Jefferson in 1815.
>
> Period.
>
> What else will you make up?
>
My fault for querying a db of mine stupidly and
it responded as it was asked,
just as it would if i were to query "president, quote, bush",
i would get responses from two individuals, and if i was to dumb to
realise, i would attribute some semi-intelligent quotes to GW, even
though we all are aware he is incapable of that..
the quote is just J. Adams, not J. Q. Adams
Since you are as sure of my atheism as i am,
and choose to slamder me on simple differences of faith,
i do not have to respect yours so
i request you to take the challenge.
Using the words of Christ, and his disciples and apostles,
justify this war on terrorism,
justify the message of vengeance the Bush Administration spews.
Now now,
quit using the old testament,
if the New Testament contradicts.
After all, aren't you "CHRISTians???
NO? - Bible Thumpers then, who are quite happy sending other
people's children straight into the hell of war, lying to them
about their eternal souls.
Come on hypocrites,
show me where Jesus said it is righteous to wage war
show me where Jesus said it is OK to Judge others.
Whats a matter? the obesity of you ego and pride so great
you cannot walk the straight and narrow path??
I be atheist post-deconstructionist
loaded for bear with reason and your own tomes.
I will play fair, using only the KJ Version of the Bible.
Verily, I say unto You,
TAKE THE CHALLENGE!!! OR PUT DOWN YOUR FUCKING CROSS!
======================================
==The Romans 12:==King James Version==
======================================
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil.
Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you,
live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,
but rather give place unto wrath:
for it is written,
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him;
if he thirst, give him drink:
for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
=====================================
==The Romans 3:==King James Version==
=====================================
10 As it is written,
There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre;
with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Come out and Play??
or
Gonna hide you light under a Bush?
Oh No!
Was it ever going to shine?
==
Calvinist distorter, trying have people believe
that the poor deserve what they suffer
and others deserve their wealth.
Lutherian obascenity of faith alone - not actions -
cause of much of the suffering in this world!
96 feces smeared upon the door!
C'mon asshole respond - with the words of
your religion's namesake if you can.
give testimony to your faith!
i await........
Thomas P.
searle) wrote:
>maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02063...@posting.google.com>...
>> chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> wrote in message news:<270620021947139445%ch...@outreach.com>...
>> > In article <uhndmar...@corp.supernews.com>, Mark K. Bilbo
>> > <for...@bout.it> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for adding
>> > > > "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in San Francisco
>> > > > are lousy historians at best.
>> > >
>> > > Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>> >
>> > A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
>> > nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
>> > was written by a socialist.
>>
>> Yep.
>
>I endorse the historical reality of the "under God" clause of the
>Pledge, and I also am glad to mention that Bellamy is classified a
>Christian Utopian Socialist.
The historical reality is that the US is, according to its
constitution, a secular state.
>
>Of couse, many would call Jesus a socialist as well.
>
>The "right wing nutcase" allegation is smoke-blowing on your part.
>
>Searle
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
searle) wrote:
It is an historical document to be learned in the context of the
period it was written. Learning it does not require agreeing with
every word in it or with any other document. It is called freedom.
>
>You, of course, don't want us teachers to be able to say that the
>Gettysburg Address was valid.
Do you mean to say that it is beyond criticism? Was Lincoln a saint
or a politician?
>
>> > Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
>> > Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
>> > constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
>> > Thunder; January is from the Greek god Janus, the god who looks both
>> > forward and backward, and the number 2002... well that has something to
>> > do with that horrific being, Jesus Christ (Domini).
>> >
>> > Thus, the only thing left for the teacher to write is "Today is 3."
>> >
>> > And I wouldn't be surprised if Arabic numerals originally derived from
>> > some religious function.
>> >
>> > You can't purge religion from public life. It is part and parcel of
>> > Western culture.
>> >
>> > If you want to deem teaching the Declaration of Independence an
>> > unconstitutional act, then you are essentially undermining the very
>> > principles that give you your rights. You are chopping your own feet.
>> >
>> > Searle
>>
>> Do you people get any denser? Or have we found the limit yet?
>
>Is that supposed to be a reasoned response to my point? You might want
>to go online and look up the phrase "ad hominem." That's what this
>statement of your amounts to.
Or a frustrated reaction to your absurd strawmen.
>
>> I still see no reason that school children should be reciting an oath
>> that involves a blatant endorsement of monotheism.
>
>It involves acknowledging a historical reality. But you atheists want
>us to lie about our history because it doesn't suit your agenda.
>History doesn't change for agendas.
And history documents that the US was founded as a secular nation, and
that, legally, religious belief has no bearing on being an American
citizen.
>
>> No wonder our test scores are some of the lowest in the Western world.
>> People are too busy fretting over kids chanting loyalty oaths in school
>> rather than how much math they learned.
>
>Whose been busy doing the fretting??? If CNN is correct it was an
>atheist who was the PLAINTIFF (viz., fretter) in San Francisco. Most
>have been busy with more important issues than fretting about trying
>to change the facts of history.
It is a lie that the US was based on the belief in any god, a lie or
ignorance of history.
Thomas P.
searle) wrote:
>"Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message news:<uhou4u4...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 06:55:24 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>>
>> > Thus, when the first grade teacher writes on the board, "today is
>> > Thursday, January 3, 2002" she is behaving entirely against the
>> > constitution, for Thursday derives from the Norse god "Thor," the god of
>> > Thunder;
>>
>> Then you won't mind if we as a nation reaffirm our heritage and change
>> the pledge to "under Thor" right?
>
>"God" is generic.
"God" (capital "G") is not generic, but a god (small "g") would be.
>If you want to think of Thor when that word is used,
>by all means knock yourself out.
Thor is not God; he is a god.
>
>The founders most often spoke of God, the Supreme Judge, Divine
>Providence, the Heavenly host, the Almighty, etc.
>
>That was the entity whom they trusted to give them success in their
>endeavors; that is the entity under whom this nation was established.
In the US Constitution you will not find one reference to God. In the
Declaration of Independence you will only find reference to "nature's
god", i.e. the impersonal god of deism. You are wrong.
Thomas P.
searle) wrote:
>"Andy Poe" <ap...@nmu.edu> wrote in message news:<uhonrn9...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D1BE0B8...@krulick.com...
>> > ambrose searle wrote:
>> > ...
>> > > From a historical perspective, I pose the following question regarding
>> > > this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
>> > > to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
>> >
>> > Only if you selectively show one side of the historical record;
>> > consider the other side:
>>
>> Even so, it is irrelevant.
>>
>> Even if every founding father was an active Christian, that no way implies
>> that they wanted the USA to be. Citing personal correspondence to "prove"
>> they were religious in no way undermines the fact that when they wrote the
>> official American documents, they left God out of it.
>
>Sounds like you need to tell the Federal Government that the
>Declaration of Independence is not an official American Document. They
>haven't learned that yet.
It does not mention Christianity at all, nor does it mention any
theistic god but it does mention "nature's god". It makes no
difference though, since it is not the basis of law in the US.
>
>The government includes it in the U.S. Code.
>
>It is cited frequently by the Supreme Court as an authoritative
>statement of U.S. principles.
>
>And please tell the Marine guard who stands by it in the National
>Archives to lighten up a little since the Declaration is not really an
>official American Document.
>
>And Lincoln, of course, was out of line when he claimed that the
>founders were explicitly dedicated to the Declaration of Independence.
>
>Or perhaps you think that God is indeed left out of the Declaration:
Perhaps you think that a theistic God was mentioned in the
Declaration. It wasn't. Perhaps you think it is part of US law. It
is not. It is a document formally stating the independence of the US.
>
>perhaps you think that the Supreme Judge of the World is William
>Rehnquist? Perhaps you think that when Jefferson said "endowed by our
>Creator" he meant whatever Doctor delivers us at birth.
Again, it is not the Constitution; it does not mention a theistic god;
and it not the basis for law in the US.
Perhaps
>"Divine Providence" was the name of a female bodyguard who stood
>outside of Independence Hall, and thats who was meant by "a firm
>reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
It still is not the basis of US law, and it still has no mention of
the Christian god or of any theistic god in it.
>
>You are another atheist who knows too little about history.
Very funny considering all you have claimed and implied.
Jeff
> > "Under God" is part of the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like you
> > would like to prevent school children from learning that as well!! Heck,
> > Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington... all their stuff is unconstitutional!
> > Anything that has a religious origin is unconstitutional!!
By the way, the Gettysburg Address was a political speech and not a law.
When we analyse it we talk about the message behind what was said and not
any laws. The speech was protected by the first amendment.
The addition of "under God" was done by the creation of a law and not
something that was intended by the original author of the Pledge of
Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance in its current form was not written by
Edward Bellamy, but based on that original which he wrote. In its current
form it was written by the United States Congress.
Andrew Lannen
searle) wrote:
>You show an vast ignorance of both constitutional interpretation and
>logical fallacies.
>
>With regard to constitutional interpretation, it has been the practice
>of the Supreme Court to consult Jefferson on the question of
>church/state separation. Do you think that the Supreme Court is out of
>line in that regard?
Considering the following, yes, I do.
1. Jefferson had no hand in the drafting of, debates over, or
ratification of the Constitution, being inconveniently in Paris.
2. Jefferson was still in France when the Congress drafted and
proposed the First Amendment.
In all, I'd say Jefferson has no more to say about the
Constitution than any minor politician of the era who wasn't
involved in either step.
-----
Andrew C. Lannen
and...@ix.netcom.com
Therion Ware
-0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) brought the total
lines of text written about "Re: Under God" to 32. I decided to
observe the following about them:
>Jesus Christ <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message news:<afi5rl$hfa$9...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>...
>> Verily, verily, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com> sayeth unto us:
>>
>> > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:48:44 -0700, ambrose searle wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Given the facts of history, Dr. Docherty's justification for
>> > > > adding "under God" to the pledge is indisputable. The judges in
>> > > > San Francisco are lousy historians at best.
>> > >
>> > > Then why wasn't "under God" in the pledge BEFORE the 1950s?
>> >
>> > A fact I find fascinating in all this discussion, mostly by right-wing
>> > nutcases, is that they rarely if ever mention that the original Pledge
>> > was written by a socialist.
>>
>> ...and added by Catholics, whom many USian Godfreaks loathe.
>
>You are another atheist who is a lousy historian. Catholics didn't
>"add" anything to the pledge. Congress added "under God" at the behest
>of a Presbyterian clergyman.
Ah, quantum history, don't you just love it?!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Mr. Motes
> want. The cannot however teach the students that his beliefs regardin
> religion are true.
Jefferson believed that Jesus was in no way divine.
Teachers should certainly teach that belief as truth if they're going teach
Jefferson's belief that we are created as true.
No?
Mr. Motes
Thumper
wrote:
Well not really. They shouldn't be teaching that any religious belief
pro or con is true.
thumper
Yang
searle) wrote:
>> So, go ahead, take the Constitution away and replace it with Biblical
>> theocracy, and you will relaize how slavery was introduced in the
>> first place.
>
>The judges in SF have taken away the constitution and replaced it with
>an atheocracy. It's the first step toward slavery
Typical Christian revisionist. I noticed that you conveniently ignored
the Christian root of American slavery. Hmmm, I wonder why?
"Slaves, OBEY your earthly masters.."
Colossian 3:22
-----
Yang
a.a.#28
rev -273.15 high priest of the most frigid church of Kelvin
EAC mole and other furry creature
"We can support the troops without supporting the president."
-Trent Lott
Yang
>"Thumper" <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:dlathugh92s75dgf4...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Jun 2002 19:35:16 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >> Either you are being dishonest or just plain stupid. o on is
>> >> advocating "taking away" historical documents.
>> >
>> >Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
>> >Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>> >
>>
>> We never had to memorize it but to answer your question, it wouldn't
>> bother me a bit as they would be studying a historical document. Not
>> being led in an affirmation that this is "one nation under God.
>
>No one is forcing them to say the pledge.
No one is forcing you to say the pledge either.
now...@nowhere.com
[BIG SNIP]
>
> So, go ahead, take the Declaration and the Gettysburg address away
> from your children, and you will soon create a country where slavery
> might be reintroduced.
>
What defines the U.S.A.? Most would argue the beautiful document that
lives and breathes called the U.S. Constitution and Amendments. The
Declaration and Gettysburg are oratory devices meant to capture an
audience and as such they use elements of theater. The Constitution on
the other hand was a deliberate attempt to define how the U.S.
government would work and impact on the U.S. citizens lives. Many of
the founders were classicists and knew the danger of religious
persecution. I am not going to selectively use quotes to back a
manufactured argument, but I will say the Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln were thoughtful men who at many times asked the deepest
questions including the questioning God. They would not agree with you.
And I would like to know how creating questioning individuals would
reintroduce slavery? It was exactly those people whatever their creed
that resulted abolition. And the fat cats would would have you believe
otherwise. Go eat your pie, make it apple.
now...@nowhere.com
>>advocating "taking away" historical documents.
>
>
> Are you willing to have school children memorizing and reciting the
> Gettysburg Address, like many of us did when we were in school??
>
> shall have a new birth of freedom."
They should learn about the Gettysburg Address but not recite it as if
it is a religious/dogmatic vehicle. It is part of U.S. History. I
think Lincoln would cringe if he children mindlessly reciting his
address that had a particular time and place.
>
>
>>It also doesn't matter if abolitionists were religiously motivated.
>
>
> It sure did matter a lot to the slaves they freed.
>
And it mattered to the people who were burned at the stake because they
were "heathens". Sounds like you might like to burn a few yourself.
Just make sure it isn't yourself.
>>What matters is the constitutional protection from the state
>>compelling my six year old child to affirm a belief in "one nation
>>under gosd."
>
>
> They don't pledge to God; they pledge to the Flag of a nation that,
> historically, was established, "under God" according to the
> Declaration, etc.
>
Maybe they should spend more time learning mathematics and science and
arts. That will sure help America more then reciting the Pledge.
>>Your dramatic whining about all things religious is a
>>complete subterfuge designed to frighten people.
>
>
> Its the nonsense about right wingers trying to create a biblical
> theocracy which is inflammatory rhetoric. Under God is de minimis.
>
It is hopeless to try to debate a "believer" because his belief is not
based on facts and logic but on fear of death.
Mr. Motes
I agree with you. I was just making a point, which probably shouldn't have
been directed to you.
Besides here's some of what Jefferson had to say about original intent (from
a letter to James Madison):
"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the
living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as
they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own
persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and
property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the
laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with
those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to
be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally
expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of
force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation
exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the
constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the
first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent.
But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every
form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority
could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of
no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is
unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative
proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery
corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general
interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove
to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more
manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Mr. Motes
now...@nowhere.com
>
> It ABSOLUTELY did. Have you never read Frederick Douglass' writings?
> He attributed his liberty to the religious principles of the Quakers!
> You don't think his liberty mattered a lot to him? You are lost.
Is knowledge stagnant? Let's see, we now have: General Relativity,
Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, the ability to see 15B light years
away, that the earth is no longer flat, that your dick won't fall off if
you touch it. And man is still an arrogant bastard.
now...@nowhere.com
>>It ABSOLUTELY did. Have you never read Frederick Douglass' writings?
>>He attributed his liberty to the religious principles of the Quakers!
>>You don't think his liberty mattered a lot to him? You are lost.
>
> You are way off on a tangent. we are talking about THE GOVERNMENT
> endorsing religion. Not what Frederick Douglas believed.
> I believe you are deliberately going astray. If not you must have a
> problem holding one thought.
>
Some people use sophistry. You will see them selectively pick quotes,
cite a particular part in an HISTORICAL document and only cite the U.S.
Constitution when it is convenient for them. That's how slavery was
defended. Tight logic is foreign to them and they do not recognize it
and as such never change what they think. Telling them that the earth
is no longer flat does not register. Glory to God.
now...@nowhere.com
> that the state could not prohibit the expression of religion.
>
It says much more than that. Do you need me to quote the original and
full text of the amendment?
now...@nowhere.com
> endorse free religion on the same public property, whether it is in a
> public school or whether it is in the chambers of city hall? Should
> not both these freedoms, as stated in the first amendment, have at
> least equal weight?
Because the issue is between the State and the Individual. A State does
not execute free speech, an individual does. An individual doesn't
endorse a religion, the State can. I suggest you read the founding docs
a little more carefully.
now...@nowhere.com
> telling my students that the Declaration of Independence is a valid
> statement??
What does that mean? The Declaration of Independence is an historical
document, not a statement.
Todd
> this matter: WWJD... What would JEFFERSON do? That is relatively easy
> to answer insofar as the following historical facts are indisputable:
Before I retort, allow me to quote something that JEFFERSON wrote,
which is not leftist propaganda, but something you can find if you
read books on quotes from former presidents, or biographies on
Jefferson (of course, Christian books won't include ones like these):
"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and
capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who
say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
So, this nixes your quote from Washington. Neither Washington's quote
or Jefferson's quote have any legal value, but it gives us insight as
to their positions on Christianity are. Additionally, neither
Washington (who was a spiritual Deist) or Jefferson were Christians.
Jefferson struck down a proposed National Day of Prayer, and clarified
the 1st Ammendment by stating that it's a separation of church and
state. His conception of "God" is far different than the monotheistic
people of today... He was a staunch Naturalist, and in the same sense,
I, as an atheist, could believe in "God" - as the powers of nature
itself, and not a being to serve.
> 2) In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that the
> equality of people is a "sacred truth," and that all of our human
> rights come from "our Creator." The two federal judges in San
> Francisco have effectively decided that it is unconstitutional for a
> school teacher to assert that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
> is valid!
Ahhhh, but you don't understand. "Laws of Nature" are also
capitalized in the same fashion, denoting that "Creator" can mean
anything... Again, used loosely, and additionally, the Declaration of
Independence has no legal value. Christians ASSUME and are told in
their communities and churches that our Founding Fathers were
Christian, when, they were very naturalistic deists who found many
problems with religion.
> 3) Jefferson asked this very relevant question given the two federal
> judges' decision: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure
> when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds
> of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
"In the minds of the people" .... not the State. There's a
difference. Religion shouldn't be abolished or thwarted. It's very
essential in society, and should be preserved, but not encouraged.
Many people NEED religion, and many people don't, and it should be
just as acceptable to believe in no gods as it is to believe in 1 god
or many gods.
> "The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the
> moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments
> which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted
> with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to
> be impressed with it."
Notice: "THE BELIEF in a God" -- he is talking to the people, and in
this speech, if you were to quote the whole thing, is about KEEPING
*RELIGION* (note, not just a church) separate from the Government.
Many people who are religious *and* non-religious see a positive
belief in a God as essential to morality in the World, and some don't.
But that has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
Madison is making the point that religion BEST FLOURISHES in a state
that is purely secular! If you are insistent on getting propaganda,
check out the sources.
Most people who want separation of church and state are not
anti-religious, and have good things to say about religion. Just
because a former president acknowledges the positive impact religion
has in people's lives doesn't mean he believes that the government
should mandate it or encourage it.
> "It was feared that the newly worded Pledge forced atheistic citizens
> to pledge allegiance to God. I argued that they pledged allegiance not
> to God, but to the flag. The phrase under God describes the historic
> fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in
> divine providence."
This is a good point, and one CAN look at it this way. Most of the
14.1% of the population in the U.S. that is not religious looks at it
this way, and hence, they don't feel threatened by the addition.
However, the PURPOSE of the addition of "under God" is not so. How do
I know? The same way you can know, by looking at any newspaper or
doing the research for yourself. Eisenhower wanted to add that so it
would dedicate our nation and the people to the "Almighty". The House
said that it would separate our nation from the "atheistic and
materialistic" aspects of Communism. This is NOT A SECULAR PURPOSE,
therefore it's unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
What would Jefferson do? Let's look at some OTHER quotes by him:
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and
children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards
uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the
world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and
error all over the earth."
.........."Notes on Virginia"
""It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all
his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism;
he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I
require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." - to W. Short,
1820
** Note, he says he's a Materialist. Now, what did the House say when
they added the "under God" to the pledge? To separate our nation from
materialism? What would Jefferson do? And to respond to your
proposed quote of Jefferson on his suggestive motto:
"The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin,
are, to my understanding, mere lapses into polytheism, differing from
paganism only by being more unintelligible."
..........To Jared Sparks, 1820
---
So you see, Jefferson was not what you think he was. Neither was
Madison. Madison struck down Faith Based Incentives (taxing people to
give to churches for their community work), and Jefferson struck down
National Day of Prayer.
In their private lives, they bashed religion. In their public life,
they knew the people were religious, and that kept them straight,
despite the problems of religion, and like many politicians of our
day, spoke of "God" in such a general way that it would resonate with
Christian and Naturalist alike.
So, with these loose definitions of "God" thrown around, we must look
at the PURPOSE of the government's actions when it is used. Does it
have a secular purpose, or does it encourage the belief of monotheism?
Today, there aren't any more deists, because most naturalists are
atheists or intellectual agnostics -- i.e. non-believers. So what do
we do? We look at the purpose of the government's action, and we also
recognize two very important things: The original pledge of
allegance, written by a former Baptist minister, did NOT include
"under God", and the Constitution, being the actual *LAW* and not
political rhetoric, does not contain ANY mention of God or Creator,
even in the loosest terms.
The separation of religion/spirituality/church and state is not a
myth, it is a fact, if you read more of the sources that your
propaganda comes from. Additionally, it is supported by many
churches, because many have come to the realization that it's NOT
anti-religious -- it protects religion, and the strictest of
separation prevents precedents from being set which could potentially
hinder religions in the minority.
I myself don't hate Christianity, but I'm worried about
fundamentalism. They have been caught multiple times, using false
founding father quotes, speaking out of tradition and not out of
history, and doing everything they can to convince themselves and
others that our Founding Fathers were all Christian and aimed to set
up a Christian nation.
Todd
Steve Krulick
> >
> > They quite conciously wrote an amendment to prohbit the majority via
> > the Government from endorsing religion in any way.
> > Thumper
>
> The 1st Amendment only says the gvt will not establish a state religion, and
> that the state could not prohibit the expression of religion.
No, if they meant to say that, they could and would have said
THAT:
"Congress shall pass no law establishing a state religion..."
They didn't. They said "no law respecting an establishment of
religion" which is more broad and inclusive, as two centuries of
court rulings have determined.
--
Steven Krulick
Kryolux Inc
s...@krulick.com
845-647-2868
845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727