The Squamata Report: Penumbra of an Emanation

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Penumbra of an Emanation

The Supreme Court used ficticious means to make law. ie Roe v Wade's Penumbra of an Emanation, and Engal v Vitale's rape of the Establishment Clause. Bush cannot overturn these decisions. But with his help......We can !

A great friend of mine, a wonderful lady, sent an email to me today. It was one of the petitions to demand that George Bush reinstate the rights of school prayer. On the surface, this seems like a noble cause and many beautiful Christian people I know had already signed it. Unfortunately it is a hoax. George Bush and the whole of Congress can not unanimously over turn this ruling. A Supreme Court ruling can only be defeated by another Supreme Court decision. What this letter does is undermine the president and lead loyal Christian supporters to lose faith in the President when no action is taken to rectify the situation. It is a sneaky covert tactic that fools many an honest soul. So instead of writing to her in response to this letter, I decided to share the truth with everyone. I hope this helps my friends from Olney and Archer City, God bless you all.

As a people, we are witnessing a pivotal point in our nation's development. Today we saw the funeral of Chief Justice William H Rehnquist. He was the last remaining Supreme court justice who served on the Roe v Wade case. His dissenting remarks on the case are classic and would make any Christian proud. Read them here

With his passing, and John Roberts' appointment to take his place, we will see Sandra Day O'Connor return to the bench in the up coming session until a successor is named. Then when that appointee is in place we have the possibility of 85 year old John Paul Stevens' seat coming available. If this happens and Bush has the ability to appoint the
successor, we could very well see many liberal strangle holds on America's Christian society be released. Roe v Wade could fall, Engel v Vitale could see it's end..... but will this mean the battle is won? Absolutely not. As a matter of a fact, it would only mean that things could become even more precarious. Hopefully this article will shed a little light on one of these pivotal fights and the outcome of our victory regarding the major battle of Engle v Vitale, or the 'School Prayer' issue.
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen."
On June 25, 1962 America witnessed evil become manifested in our proud Republic.

For vast decades American schools began their day with the 'Pledge of Allegiance', a short prayer and then they sang 'The Star-Spangled Banner' or 'America'. Slowly the anti-Christian factions challenged individual State and City laws that protected the practice of school sanctioned prayer in school. To answer the dissenters, the state Board of Regents in New York drafted a neutral prayer that the students could recite, with exceptions permitting any student to chose not to participate. The non-denominational prayer (above, in red) was carefully worded, but still drew attacks from the malcontent of the left.

They contended that this school led prayer constituted a breach of the 'Establishment Clause' in the First Amendment. Actually it was their decision that violated the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause was ratified to protect our rights to worship and pray without interference from the government. This decision was unconstitutional !! It relied on the interpretation of the First Amendment by Liberal activists bent on the removal of Christian values from our culture. The Constitution's ultimate goal is to protect Americans from oppression at the hands of it's government.

The Engel decision flies in the face of the Constitution's intent. Christians are the ones who are restrained in this decision, not the Government. No sober mind can honestly concur with the Supreme Court's ruling here. Supreme Justice Stewart wrote the Dissenting opinion in the Engel v Vitale case. Hugo Black delivered the opinion to the court, and Justice Douglas Concurred.Click on the blue links above and read both of these historic opinions.

How do we rectify the situation? Well, that is very difficult, and tricky.
Just like in the Roe v Wade decision, the Supreme Court over stepped it's boundaries and created law instead of interpreting it. When Liberal activist judges find themselves in the majority, they transform America into an Oligarchy, or nation ruled by a few. Therefore giving majority status to the minority.

We can only stop this by winning the 'Constitutional Option / Nuclear Option' and by replacing, for example, the Court's prominent Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. That will temporarily disarm them. But it will not heal the wounds. You see, both of these decisions were made by removing the States' right to rule, flouting the tenants of our Federalist society. When we over come these rulings and strike down the Roe and Engel decisions, the states will regain the rights and a wave of votes to determine precidence will commence. So the actual derailing of these rulings will NOT make abortion illegal, nor will it make prayer in school legal. Those issues will very from state to state. The beast will be hobbled but not killed.

How optimistic can we be? I love to hold on to hope, It's pleasurable to look on the bright side, however my realistic mind draws another conclusion. Tuesday, the California Assembly passed a bill to legalize gay marriage. Now the pressure is on Gov. Schwarzenegger to sign it in to law. If / When he does, it will set off a firestorm of similar bills in other states. If they can win at the state level on issues such as gay marriage, they will certainly win the Roe / Engel battles in many states too.

The only option we will be left with, is the never ending battle to vote in and keep Conservative Christian leaders in our state and local offices. We will have to win on the state and local level or we will lose even more rights. So to do your part, you must become active in the political races close to home. Do not sit by and watch anti-Christian factions vote God out of America! The battle will be hard, and the cost will be great, but the time to join is now.

Remember, it is NOT illegal to pray in school and cases are won daily by groups like the Christian Law Association (CLA). Kids can assemble to pray in school if the school has not sanctioned it and it is not during school hours. Yes, even teachers can organize prayer groups after school. If you think your rights are being violated, contact the CLA.

P.O. Box 4010

Seminole, FL 33775

(727) 399-8300

E-mail

Web site:https://www.christianlaw.org/

25 Comments:

Salena Moffat said...: What a powerful picture you used to begin your post! Good work!; 9/08/2005
Patty-Jo said...: Wow! Great post!; 9/08/2005
Unknown said...: Thanks guys, I wasn't real proud of the way I put together the post because it tended to jump around from subject to subject so much.But I had so much to explain that inorder to keep it short I really had to condense it. I hope the point was made though.; 9/08/2005
Unknown said...: I have read your blog. I realize that you are young and life still has many lessons to teach you. I know you are not a bad person, just misguided. Keep your chin up, continue to explore and express your oppinions. If you don't mind, I will be praying that you will come to know the love God has for you. Only then will you realize why prayer in school and all places is important.; 9/11/2005
Unknown said...: “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.’’

Alexander Hamilton, 1775

I realize you are hoping that I will attack you, call you names, and come off as the close-minded evil Christian that you perceive me to be. Sorry, if I have disappointed you. However, You wanted me to respond and give you answers about why you are wrong. So, I will oblige you.

First of all, would you please recite the exact wording in the US Constitution that calls for a 'separation of Church and State' ? I would love to see that. I would also love for you to tell me how we can count on the Constitution to provide us with 'a right to privacy'.
Neither is explicitly mentioned and only a twisting and misinterpretation of the wording can derive such notions. Both Roe v Wade and Engel v Vitale were based on such blatant misinterpretations by a branch of government that overstepped it's boundaries and took to making the law and not deciding cases based on existing law. So, legally, what was done in both cases is illegal. That is not the main reason I disagree with it though. To me, the law of God and morality takes precedence here. I cannot expect people who align themselves against God, Christians, and Morality to understand that.

Let's pretend that the war (that you say doesn't exist) on Christianity never happened and that right now, during our war against terrorism at the hands of radical Muslims, we were debating the banning of Muslim prayer in school. Would you think we were acting prejudicially? I am sure you would, as would I. Some would say the difference would be that we were singling out a specific religion. I say, there is no difference. As you admitted, the country is overwhelmingly Christian. The religion that was addressed at these hearings was Christianity. The liberal Justices that decided this were acting prejudicially against Christians specifically.

As a predominately Christian nation, in accordance with the tenants of a Democracy, it is unfathomable that we would concede that fact and set forth rulings to regulate the practice of our Christian faith. Isn't that what the Constitution was about, insuring freedom from government? How then can you justify the regulation of Christian prayer in school or any other place? If it is not disruptive and it is done during hours not relegated to study, there is no reason to exclude it.
The first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Did the third branch of Congress make a law respecting a religion or the free exercise there of? YES they most certainly did. They regulated Christian's rights to pray. The ruling was in respect to a religion and infringed on the rights of said religion. It was based on Constitutional law that explicitly prohibited such a ruling.

What would I like to see done to ratify the situation? The ruling should be struck down and it should once again become a State's rights issue. We are not a traditional Democracy in that we are a Representative Republic. Insuring us against the Oligarchy that the fore fathers sought to avoid. One that is ruled by an overly powerful federal government. The primary way we achieve that is to let individual districts and states decide the issues that are closest to the people. Anyone who pays attention knows that New York City has differing legislative needs from that of Archer City, TX. the community in New York is decidedly more Liberal and secularist. While Archer City is considerably more Conservative and operates from a moral standpoint. It is just as wrong for New York to decide how 'AC' should operate as it is for Archer City to make law for New Yorkers to follow. If we are to remain the cultural melding pot that we sat out to be, we must respect the rights of all Americans. I respect your right to not believe in God. He made you to have a free will so that your choice to love him would be yours alone. It is my choice to Love him and to teach my children to pray. No man or court has the right to take that decision away from me.

I have nothing against you, and had no intention of patronizing you. I just think you are misinformed and driven to react based on your prejudice against Christians. I am sorry if I said things that offend you, however, I do not curb my speech to avoid offending anti-Christians. Nor will I start.; 9/13/2005
Unknown said...: I could argue with you, I think, forever, and I would get nowhere. You make some good points and then you go off on a tear and try to defend yourself. I am not attacking you, I am pointing out the inaccuracies in your comments. For all I know and from the evidence I have, you seem to be a good person. You, however, are misguided and don't understand why.

The 'Separation of church and State' is the argument you are presenting, knowingly or not. What I wrote about is the way that political Liberals (who ARE anti-Christian) have used what they consider to be 'The Spirit of the law' to create what is not there (the Penumbra of Emanation). They are attacking Christians, we are merely defending ourselves under the law. I appreciate your comments and I did not intend to infer that you are not capable of having Christian friends, but I do believe you have spiritual issues that need dealing with, but that is up to you.

I could try to take apart every statement you made and show where you are wrong, but I just don't have that kind of time. I realize that your understanding of the Constitution (which includes the first ten Amendments, also called the 'Bill of Rights' :) is subject to the liberal teachers who feed you their slant. There is no way I could ever undo the hours of indoctrination that they have treated you to. You are a smart lady, I have great hope for you. Come and argue with me anytime.
(I will try to be more cordial next time)Good luck.; 9/13/2005
Salena Moffat said...: Wow, quite a discussion going here! First of all, just to jump in with my two cents' worth, Vanessa, way above you said "Why can't people teach religion to their own children and not have it forced upon kids in a public school setting?" I have yet to hear of ANYONE "forcing" their Christianity on anyone else in a public school setting in this country--if you can back up that ludicrous statement with an actual source, I will of course renege my comment. I have, however, to go off topic, heard of Islamic fundamentalists forcing their religion on their kids in their schools, but that's a whole different story.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That has always said, to me, that there should be no prohibition of the free exercise of religion. That would include, I would think, public schools, wouldn't it? That the government isn't supposed to interfere with prayer? That sounds like it should mean, broadly, that Christian children can pray in public schools if they choose to.

You said you used to be a Christian. It's none of my business, but may I ask what you are now?; 9/14/2005
Unknown said...: Thanks Salena, I too am curious as to the circumstances that led you to the belief you have now and what religion (if any) you are now. I did not mean to end the discussion. I am just so busy with my life that I don't have a lot of time to go over the individual points you made. As for telling you why you are misguided, I already have, both in my post and the previous comments. As Salena said the First Amendment is in place to protect our rights to express our religion (or not to) no matter where we are. It was never meant to be a separation between the Church and Government, simply a protection of religion from the government.

I have a question, Christianity teaches morality, (I assume we agree on that) and Secularism teaches that morality is relative and seeks to remove it from society. So are we not better off as a nation relying on biblical principals to govern as opposed to the lack of guidance and the hopelessness presented by secularism?

Just to drop another bee in your bonnet, the Constitution does not say that Government cannot support a religion, it simply says that it cannot make laws respecting one. So why can't the government monetarily support Christian or Jewish, or for that matter any religion based organization that is providing support and services to the people? Isn't the Government a representation of the people? Wouldn't it be a wise use of our tax dollars to support groups like the United Way and Salvation Army? Is there something inherently wrong with the work done by such groups? If the government's support of these organizations means that they are aligned with them, then why would they support groups such as GLSEN? Also, why is it that in 2002 the Miami-Dade County permit and Inspection Center decorated it's lawn for the 'Holidays' and were allowed to display Jewish symbols and Kwanzaa Symbols but disallowed the Cross or any Christmas symbols (even a Christmas Tree) because they would be in violation of Church and state? How is it that all other religions including atheism (it is a religion) can be respected and included in public and government places yet Christianity is singled out as being a violation of a law that was never written? You must admit that it is absurd.

Vanessa, I am not judging you and I don't think you are anti Christian (you have made that clear) however, the position you hold is the anti-Christian position. Since you are open minded and objective, I would like to suggest some reading that I think will help you understand where I am coming from. If you will objectively read the book 'Persecution- How Liberals are waging war against Christianity' by David Limbaugh, you will find hundreds of examples of how our schools are being used as their battleground.

Finally, I will try harder not to be judgmental and if I make irrational assumptions I hope you will continue to point it out. I think the discussion has potential and I will do my part to not offend you.; 9/14/2005
Unknown said...: Sorry I did not see the last part of your comment, thanks for the clarification.; 9/14/2005
Unknown said...: I agree that schools should not teach religion, but I think schools have a duty to believers to allow prayer as much as they have a duty not to require it. Do we agree?; 9/14/2005
Unknown said...: That's ok to have a long comment. I however must respectfully disagree. I have explored all of the things you have Discussed. I do not agree with JS Mill and I think consequentialism is just another way to make yourself feel good while refusing the teachings of the ONE TRUE GOD. Aristotle was trying to immortalize his son and at the same time ask people to ignore the fact that nothing good comes but from THE ONE TRUE GOD. Talk about moral relativism, deontology is just away the Greeks tried to make it seem as if a good deed is GOD and they are wrong.... There is only ONE TRUE GOD. I read John Rawls and understand the distinctions he and Shelly Kagan are making between deontology and Consequentialism is another example of man trying to think their way around THE ONE TRUE GOD.
So if you wonder where I get this idea that there is one true God, I'll tell you.
Deu 4:39
"Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Jer 10:10
But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.

Mark 12:29
Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

I, like you, did not come to my ideological stance without studying other views. I however, will not concede the fact that God exists and Christ is the Son of God and all things on Earth and in Heaven must soon come before his throne. I am not closed minded, I am just sure.

As for God's law being subject our governing laws, I would not bet my life on that! As for those who seek to remove God from our schools and keep the truth from them....well Christ has already addressed that.....
Mark 10:14
Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.

Mt 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

I have read the things you suggested and I respect your affection for them. Now, if you would humor me and read the book I suggested- 'Persecution', I think we can better understand one another.; 9/14/2005
Unknown said...: PS I did not mean to make any assumptions in the previous comment. I know you did not say that God's law is subject to man's law, but it is the Penumbra of your argument's Emanation. ;); 9/14/2005
Anonymous said...: I Dont Come To This Page As Often As UI would like but I do enjoy reading your Opinion on several different subjects. It seems like you put a lot of work into this page (with not only this time to type the stories but quick response to eveyones comment and researching you view before posting) I may not always have the same opinion as you but I respect that.; 9/15/2005
Anonymous said...: America's Most Famous Deists

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
-George Washington

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels."
-The Rev. Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister and historian (lamented in an 1831 sermon)

Founding Father Quotes You Won't Hear on the 700 Club

Ex-Judge Moore felt that keeping a monument of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse was appropriate because he felt it was the foundation of American law. He obviously never read the Constitution of the United States.

"...but America was founded as a Christian nation," many say. Not so. Most of the more famous Founding Fathers were, in fact, Deists. Just listen to their own words.

The Constitution of the United States

Article VI, Section 3: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

George Washington

George Washington to Tench Tilghman, (March 24, 1784):
"I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Atheists."

John Adams

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787–88:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind”

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, (July 16, 1814):
"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."

More on John Adams

Thomas Jefferson

Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moore, August 14, 1800
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual."

Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”

Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801, First Inaugural Address
"And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803
"I will never, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
"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."

Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”

Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, January 10, 1816
"You judge truly that I am not afraid of the priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries, of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying & slandering, without being able to give me one moment of pain. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West, and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance of those on whom their interested duperies were to be plaid off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develope itself. If it does, they excite against it the public opinion which they command, & by little, but incessant and teasing persecutions, drive it from among them. Their present emigrations to the Western country are real flights from persecution, religious & political, but the abandonment of the country by those who wish to enjoy freedom of opinion leaves the despotism over the residue more intense, more oppressive. They are now looking to the flesh pots of the South and aiming at foothold there by their missionary teachers. They have lately come forward boldly with their plan to establish " a qualified religious instructor over every thousand souls in the US." And they seem to consider none as qualified but their own sect."

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5, 1817
"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'

Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. 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."

Jefferson's Autobiography
“[A]n amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’; the insertion was rejected by a 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”

More on Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Ibid, Section 8:
“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries”

James Madison, introducing the Bill of Rights at the First Federal Congress, Congressional Register, June 8, 1789:
"[The] civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed."

James Madison, Detached Memoranda, believed to have been written circa 1817.
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor."

James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819
"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822:
"I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Cong[ress], when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat[ional] Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to the Const[itution] the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat."

Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography:
“Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself ”

“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: London, 1757 - 1775
"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England."

Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

From "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man"
"Though 'none by searching can find out God, or the Almighty to perfection,' yet I am persuaded, that if mankind would dare to exercise their reason as freely on those divine topics as they do in the common concerns of life, they would, in a great measure, rid themselves of their blindness and superstition, gain more exalted ideas of God and their obligations to him and one another, and be proportionally delighted and blessed with the views of his moral government, make better members of society, and acquire, manly powerful incentives to the practice of morality, which is the last and greatest perfection that human nature is capable of."

Click here to read Ethan Allen's "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man"

Thomas Paine

Excerpts from The Age of Reason:

"My own mind is my own church. 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."

"Whenever we read the obscene stores (of the Bible), the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the Word of God."

"...when I see throughout the greater part of this book (the Bible) scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonor my Creator by calling it by His name."

"(The Christian) despises the choicest gift of God to man, the Gift of Reason; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls if 'human reason' as if man could give reason to himself."

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity”

Thomas Paine, Answers to Friends regarding The Age of Reason, Paris, May 12, 1797

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New."

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No. Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?"
The Faith of our Founding Fathers, by Dean Worbois
No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our spiritual selves. What is surprising is when fundamentalist Christians think the Founding Fathers' faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. 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.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they—the Baptists—who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's.

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.; 9/15/2005
Unknown said...: Vanessa I appreciate your discussing the things we have covered here. I know you don't think I have addressed your primary points but I have addressed them to no end. The Constitution is meant to protect our rights as a people to worship as we wish and our public schools are no exception. The primary argument that most give is that it is unconstitutional to pass a law saying that kids must pray in school. That is true, however, there was never a law that initiated mandatory prayer in school. The prayer was done as tradition. the only laws passed regarding prayer in school prohibited it. I am not asking for a law to mandate prayer, simply the removal of the ones that prohibit it. I hope to see you around. Thank you.
Eric, I am glad to see you have stopped by. It is always an honor to hear from you.

Mr. Anonymous, funny that you haven't the courage to use your name or even a pseudonym. The things you said are hogwash and I will address them more in depth on Friday (when I have more time) but as for one of your opening comments, "Most of the more famous Founding Fathers were, in fact, Deists." is factually wrong only 3 of our founding fathers were deists and the quotes you listed are no more evidence of such than Katrina is evidence of Bush's racism. You seek to confuse and you spat upon the word of God as if it were as vile as the tenants of your own warped beliefs. As I said, I will address your other points later . You make me sick. Vanessa is honestly disagreeing with my opinion, you Sir are vile and it is your anti American vomit that causes the children of God to stumble. You should be ashamed of your self.; 9/15/2005
Anonymous said...: Vanessa, where do I begin? First, let us look at one of your first sentences: “No one is saying you can't worship your god in your own way, as long as it's not hurting anyone. Why can't people teach religion to their own children and not have it forced upon kids in a public school setting? It is unconstitutional, according to the First Amendment. To have any law respecting a religious establishment is unconstitutional, period. The end.” The short answer (and in all your ramblings, the totality of my response won’t be short) is that nothing says you can’t worship in your own way, in fact, the constitution guarantees it. But, having the kid recite the pledge with the added phrase “Under God” is NOT unconstitutional, nor is it the establishment of a religion. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled in the past, that religious expressions of a historical nature that do not clearly establish a “demand” to worship in a certain way (which is what the First
Amendment really addresses if you knew any history at all) is OK. Hence, the attempts to strike other measures of religious expression such as “In God We Trust,” opening prayer before each session of congress, even the opening before arguments in the USSC have a historical background and are allowable, and this is important Vanessa, and constitutional.

Too, the use of the phrase is not “Forced” on anyone. A child can omit it if he wishes or even not say the pledge. Your side of the argument says “Well, yeah, but then the child will be ostracized by his peers,” but evidence of such are few and far between. Besides young lady, the fact of the matter of one child being “uncomfortable” cannot, constitutionally, prevent another child from using the phrase.

You are, doubtlessly, far to young to remember when the phrase wasn’t there. On the other hand, I remember struggling to learn to ADD it to the pledge when I was in grad school. That alone establishes a historical precedent ;-)

I’m always interested in hearing the opinion of young people, especially those in a college or university because I teach at a university as an adjunct professor. One of the things I’ve noticed however, is that most, like you confuse “critical thinking” with “thinking critically.” The number of “liberals” who believe for example that the freedom of the press part of the First Amendment or the assembly part or redress of grievances part state that the constitution means EXACTLY what it says. But, when it comes to the, oh, say 2nd Amendment, it doesn’t mean you can keep and bear arms, or when it says as in the 1st Amendment when it says “or prohibit the free expression thereof” it doesn’t really mean it. Sigh, such hypocrisy.

Well, here I’ve spent well over 400 words to answer a short quote from you, but you see, you really have no leg to stand on. Perhaps in your studies, which in this and other comments you have so blithely iterated, you can try to figure out why you seem to be mimicking the thoughts of a few professors of liberal arts rather than demanding that they teach you how to reason on your own.; 9/15/2005
Unknown said...: Thank you George. I did try to make those points but it always sounds better when you say it. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Ok, I'm sorry about the gentleman part, I don't want to damage your rep. ;); 9/15/2005
Anonymous said...: Vanessa writes: "And keep in mind that while I may not have been around in the era where it was added into the pledge (yay, we're not Communists *cough*), I'm still aware of the history involved and I don't need to have a first-hand experience to actually know what happened. Yet another way to manipulate the age factor into this when it is ironically just making you look immature.

Once again, please stick to the subject at hand. Guns or the right to own guns was not mentioned in this post at all, and I'm not going to even address it because it assumes that all "liberals" (which if you've read my comments with any degree of care, you'll notice I'm not that far to the left at all, but seeing in black and white is way cool I guess) are hypocritical in that they try to interpret the second amendment differently than what it says, as if that's their only reasoning against it (and as if interpretation is in fact a part of it)."

Well, if an observation regarding comparative youth vs. old age is equivalent to saying your butt doesn’t sag, more power to you. That was by the way your inference, not mine. I merely stated a fact. I am older than you and thus have an entirely different perspective, one built in my experiences, not yours.

Be that as it may, it is one thing to “be aware of the history involved” and to have had a first hand experience. As a youth I stood at the gates of Bergin-Belsen and Dachau. I can imagine what went on in those places, I have read the histories of concentration camps and I have spoken to a few survivors of those camps. I have seen the numbers in faded tattoos on their arms. But, I cannot understand what they actually went through and that was part of my point. Knowing the history of something and having experienced the history of something is entirely different. Perhaps you are being condescending to someone of my age; “Hey old man, I read your history, what you say doesn’t affect me cause I know your history.” Of course, before you get in a high dudgeon I know you didn’t say that, but that is an implication in your statement.

Lastly, you comment that you didn’t comment about the 2nd Amendment and that I should “stick to the subject at hand.” This is, of course, further evidence of your inability to utilize the concepts of critical thinking and instead use thinking critically. Re-read what I wrote, my comment, vis-à-vis the 2nd Amendment was by way of example.

So, good luck in your education, and from what I’ve seen so far, you really ought to be demanding a refund from your college.; 9/16/2005
Unknown said...: Good job Anonymous. (as if that were your reeeeeal name. Try these quotes on for size.

On April 30, 1789, President George Washington said:

". . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. 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."Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."
On March 4, 1797, President John Adams said:

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence."
On March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson said:

". . . I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
On March 4, 1809, President James Madison said:

"But the source to which I look . . . is in . . . my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."
On March 4, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln said:

". . . Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
On March 4, 1885, President Grover Cleveland said:

". . . And let us not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke His aid and His blessing upon our labors."
On March 5, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson said:

". . . I pray God I may be given the wisdom and the prudence to do my duty in the true spirit of this great people."
On March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

"In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come."
On January 21, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said:

"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole people."
On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy said:

"The world is very different now. . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
. . . .
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

They were quoted in the
dissenting opinion by Justice Stewart in the '62 Engel v. Vitale decision.; 9/16/2005
Ogre said...: Dang. More comments than post content. Geez. I tried to read all the comments, really I did, I just couldn't get through all of them -- I have an appointment next week. ;)

A couple issues from another angle -- in your original post, Ken, you mentioned that neither Congress nor the President can overturn the Supreme Court decision. That's absolutely incorrect. They most certainly CAN! That's the point of checks and balances. The judges can say they don't like a law, but Congress can just pass another. If the president doesn't like the Supreme Court's decision, he can simply NOT enforce the law! That IS how checks and balances are supposed to work. So if your school wants school prayer, they can just do it. If Bush truly doesn't like the law, he can seriously tell his people to simply not arrest anyone for violating it. That's how checks and balances work!

However, a better solution is to get government out of the schools entirely. Why should government run all schools? They shouldn't. Government should completely divest itself of all schools and this country would be an immensely better place.

And Vanessa -- you seem to mix words a bit. You complain about government "supporting" relgion. I just checked my Constitution and I didn't see "supporting religion" in it anywhere. It very specifically states that CONGRESS will not make a law ESTABLISHING a religion. Support for one over another is a long, long ways from establishment. Prayer in schools in NOT establishing a religion. As a matter of fact, delcaring that no one can pray is more of an establishment of the atheist religion.; 9/16/2005
Unknown said...: Ogre,
You are my favorite superhero! Thanks so much for coming to visit and play with my moonbat. I would love it if you stopped in more often. I have to agree and disagree. First you are right the comments in this section are a great substitute for Ambien. You are also right that the Legislative and Executive branches can pass other laws, however they cannot be contradictory and the Supreme Court has the right to Determine which laws apply to any given case. This is why there is not a Constitutional system in the world that has a complete separation of powers and none that do not overlap. The Supreme Court is in a sense an oligarchy in that when it interprets a law, the interpretation becomes the definition of the law. This is what they mean by legislating from the bench.When the Supreme Court says that 'an establishment of religion' means the government must be separate from the church or that a right against search and seizure is relatable to a woman having a right to privacy that includes abortion, the Court is making law. The most dangerous law because it is irreversible without a future ruling . Engel v Vitale is not based on any law that is in the Constitution. However, since it attaches it's self to the 1st Amendment it actually changes the definition of the amendment, it cannot be overturned by the other branches. A new law in respect to that ruling can be counterbalanced by the judiciary and found to be unconstitutional. This is why Roe v Wade and other decisions have stood the test of time. The decisions of the Supreme Court is final. Robert Jackson said, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." If a President were to not enforce a law that would be fine. But the President cannot ignore the Constitution and it is the Judiciary that defines it. Once Precedence is attached (only a ruling is required to establish precedence) the ruling is only able to be overturned by having a similar case come before the Court and be ruled on differently. There is no law precedence for Roe or Engel, they are interpretations of the Constitution.
I hope that made sense, I am a little rusty.
Vanessa, Atheism IS a religion by definition. The dictionary defines it as: A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.or-A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as a doctrine.
It may not be an organized religion but it is no less a religion. Come to think of it, with the actions taken by the current anti-Christian movement, atheism has become quite organized.; 9/16/2005
Anonymous said...: Vanessa wrote: “The butt sagging thing was a joke, obviously. I'm making fun of the fact that you're even including the prospect of age into this argument when it has nothing to do with it. When you discuss this or anything else with someone, try to pay attention to the validity of his/her arguments and not how old he/she is or any other aspects of a person. I read on your site that one of your rules is to not have ad-hominem attacks within comments, which is an attack on a person rather than his/her argument, not simply the use of foul language in name-calling. Ad-hominem is exactly what you're doing here by even including it in your comment. So, is it just on your page that it's not allowed but elsewhere it's fine and dandy? How's that for hypocritical? Think about it:”

Well, first one seldom ends a sentence with a colon. Having said that, lets look at your contention and a definition or two. You contend that you inserting a “joke” and me in turn referring to your joke as your perception. My exact wording was “Well, if an observation regarding comparative youth vs. old age is equivalent to saying your butt doesn’t sag, more power to you.” That is a direct reflection on what you said, not an attack on you or on any characteristic of you other than that in my opinion “Too, the use of the phrase is not “Forced” on anyone. A child can omit it if he wishes or even not say the pledge. Your side of the argument says “Well, yeah, but then the child will be ostracized by his peers,” but evidence of such are few and far between. Besides young lady, the fact of the matter of one child being “uncomfortable” cannot, constitutionally, prevent another child from using the phrase."

You are, doubtlessly, far to young to remember when the phrase wasn’t there. On the other hand, I remember struggling to learn to ADD it to the pledge when I was in grad school. That alone establishes a historical precedent.”

In the above sentences, I described a fact, one that directly impinges on my argument, both of a historical precedent and as a statement of a fact that you had previously brought up. In no way was that an attack on you or an attribute of you. Were it, you might have an argument vis-à-vis what an ad hominem attack is.

The definition of ad hominem is as follows: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

In order for it to be an ad hominem attack, it would have needed to be phrased something along the lines of “you are too young to understand” which I neither said, nor did I imply. My statement clearly establishes that two facts are present. 1.) That you don’t remember because of your youth, meaning you were born AFTER the addition of the phrase and 2.) that MY AGE (and this was a joke) added historical precedent. What does that have to do with your argument. It should have been clear, the United States Supreme Court has ruled as constitutional religious phrases and terms that clearly are established in history. The UNDER GOD phrase was added over 50 years ago and is in fact by it’s length of time of usage a historical precedent.

The “young lady” is, admittedly somewhat archaic in this day and age, but is still considered a polite way to address someone younger and is also NOT considered an ad hominem attack. If you think so, you are mistaken.

Having said all of the above, your comments vis-à-vis any ad hominem attack are groundless.

You also wrote: “The second amendment example that you provided was an example of what exactly? Liberal hypocrisy? What did that have to do with anything? I did read that paragraph and it has nothing to do with religion, you just threw it in there as some kind of analogy to show that liberals don't know what they're talking about. You haven't addressed my points and you're taking away from the argument by trying to bash liberals for an entirely different topic. If you want to discuss the second amendment, then do it elsewhere because this is supposed to be a topic on religion and the government, not an opportunity for you to talk about how hypocritical you think liberals are. It's completely immature and unnecessary. [NOTE: Vanessa, that last phrase was an ad hominem attack]”

I already explained my use of the wording but I will be happy to do so again. A substantially large part of the argument against including “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is the belief (not fact as I will show) that the 1st amendment prohibits it because it says very clearly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

My argument in refuting this is that often liberals think (mistakenly) that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is the “wall” of separation between church and state. Likewise, the liberal establishment also thinks that the 2nd amendment (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,) does not mean that an individual can keep and bear arms. Thus in one case, words mean what they say, and in the second case they don’t mean what they clearly say. Thus, a tad of hypocrisy. In actuality, BOTH amendments mean exactly what they say.

The founders, those who wrote the constitution, had no truck with the idea that the Church of England could be forced on any one. Or, that indeed any religion could/should be forced on anyone and thus the exact language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and it was included in an amendment because the original document of the constitution did not specifically prohibit this as an act of Congress. It made absolutely no mention of whether or not a STATE could or could not do so. In fact, the 9th and 10th Amendment specifically state (respectively): “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Now, it would seem that the 9th and 10th specifically reserve all other powers to the states and or to the people unless specifically forbidden by the constitution.

Your argument is that “Under God” is un-constitutional and you use in part the following: “I showed exactly how the government would be initiating a law respecting religion by funding public schools that do tell their students to pray. Is anyone going to address this or tell me how this is wrong?” Well, you are wrong. There is no prayer here any more than a child using U.S. Currency to pay for his school lunch with coin/bills stating “In God We Trust" is a prayer. Both are of historical use that previous USSC rulings have held up. I suspect that this case will also have the 9th Circuit overturned. Let us go one step further. Oregon has a law stating that the state may not use state funds in helping students obtain degrees in a religious school. A student who had obtained a state scholarship applied and was accepted to a divinity school. The state refused to pay, the student took them to court and the state was upheld (see the 1st, 9th and 10th amendment again) On the other hand, GI’s have often used the GI bill (federal dollars) to attend religious schools and this has been upheld by the USSC. I myself attended grad school on the GI bill at a Catholic University. Are you going to say that was unconstitutional? Even with the USSC stating that it is?
Lastly, is the phrase Under God a prayer? The dictionary defines prayer (your term, remember?) as:
1. A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.
2. The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of worship.
3. An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving: One evening a week, the family would join together in prayer.
4. A specially worded form used to address God, a god, or another object of worship
a. prayers A religious observance in which praying predominates: morning prayers. A fervent request: Her prayer for rain was granted at last.
b. The thing requested: His safe arrival was their only prayer.
No where do you find the mentioning of a phrase (specifically Under God) a prayer, thus, by your own argument it cannot be unconstitutional in as much as the state is funding schools and having them recite the Pledge of Allegiance but that the pledge is by definition not a prayer.

I cannot, and will not take the time to answer all the charges you make in your consistent circumlocutions, you can argue all day long that no one is 1) answering your arguments, when in fact they have been and 2) you are having to repeat yourself because your arguments aren’t being answered. I have answered several of your arguments, I have not used ad hominem attacks (by the way, acceptable usage of ad hominem [two Latin words by the way] does not allow them to be hyphenated.). Further, you launch against me a diatribe for your insistence that I did use such an attack followed by your statement “without the childishness that you've displayed in saying that.” Which is of course an ad hominem attack on me in as much as it calls a characteristic rather than disprove my argument.

One other point, and then I close and bid farewell to this argument. I stated that there is a difference between “Critical Thinking” and thinking critically. You are of the opinion that it is mere “semantics” and thus has no place in the argument. I would have thought, perhaps in error, that you would have understood that the “critically” in the term “thinking critically” can mean two different things. The first thinking clearly and separating the wheat from the chaff as it were. It can also mean, and this was my intent, thinking negatively. Examine again what I said. Words do in fact mean things and one must learn to discern meanings on a number of different levels in order to exhibit true “Critical Thinking.”; 9/16/2005
Unknown said...: Vanessa, I am trying to sort though things as much as possible here. George (GM) is a good friend of mine and simply holds a similar view. The points are fact and are really not subject to debate. In the sense that the sky is blue. We can argue all day but the fact remains that the Court made rulings and are recently making decisions that twist the constitution and cause it to mean something that it does not. As I said before, the government never established a religion, it was tradition. The only law established was the one that infringed upon Christian's rights to pray and observe their religion in private as well as public places. The court created a law here and the activists use the court to do so even today. Just look at the California ruling that says the pledge is unconstitutional in school. Simply because it contains the phrase 'one nation Under God'. Can you see now that the Judiciary and Liberals are at war with Christianity?; 9/16/2005
Anonymous said...: Vanessa, I'm glad you thought the removal of the drawing of the Mission from the Seal of the County of Los Angeles was silly, and I agree. My contention is that it truly is a war, not just against religion, but against Christianity. Below, I'll give you a couple of links that talk about that.

This one about "outlawing" the Easter Bunny and this one A Jury Litmus Test and more on the inmates and the asylum

And lastly, I will refer you to the tail end of the last cite. Martin Niemöller's "poem" is exactly what is happening now, slowly to be sure, but inexorably none-the-less.; 9/17/2005
Unknown said...: Hummm....um OH! I'm sorry I dozed off there. Vanessa you are putting us all to sleep. Please be more brief. Great job GM, you took care of the first comment and this one in one concise comment. Vanessa, I will pray for you.
I'll bet that makes her mad!; 9/29/2006