Subject: Re: Ordinance of 1785
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/14/99

In article <19990512220148.03405.00000812@ng-ci1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>While the authorship of the Northwest Ordinance is legion, Commager and
>Cantor note that "fundamentally, of course, the Ordinance followed
>Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784."
>
>Jefferson once again shows himself the true American Renaissance man.
>

Ed's post on the Northwest Ordinance is largely irrelevant. He asks for
evidence that religion was taught in schools, which I have previously 
posted, but the Ordinance speaks for itself. Religion, morality and 
knowledge are necessary for good government, so SCHOOLS shall be 
built to ensure good government. What evidence is there that said schools 
would ONLY teach "knowledge" divorced from religion and morality?
The very idea was unthinkable by all who had a hand in the drafting
and ratifying of the Ordinance.

With the possible exception, of course, of Jefferson. And Ed brings
Jefferson in to try to insinuate that the "real" meaning of the Ordinance
was secular. But this will not do. No one questions the influence
of Jefferson, as no one questions his influence on the Declaration
of Independence. But Jefferson was out of step with the rest of the
nation. And when Congress adopted the language of Jefferson's
land ordinance and his draft of the Declaration of Independence,
the were thankful for Jefferson's contribution, but went on to make
the drafts appropriate for a Christian nation.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written:

     And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other 
     our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

But Congress amended it to read:

    And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on 
    the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to 
    each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 

Ed correctly quotes the language of the 1789 Ordinance:

    Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government 
    and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education 
    shall forever be encouraged.

Face it, Ed. The men who wrote this Ordinance did not think the way
you think. The did not think the way you would like to think they thought.
They thought religion and morality were necessary to good government.
You think religion and government should be kept "separate."
Most Americans today agree with the Founders, and disagree with
you and the ACLU. (The problem with most of these Americans,
however, is that they are also self-centered and apathetic.)

Whatever Jefferson may have believed about religion and morality,
this Ordinance does not reflect his views.

The goal (the "end") of the Ordinance is good government. 
The means to the end is religion and morality and knowledge.
The tool for all three of these is "schools and the means of education."

Nobody in America (with the possible exception of Jefferson)
believed that education could be stripped of religion and morality
and still be effective education. Even if Jefferson believed this, 
he was overruled by the elected representatives of a Christian nation.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm 
---------------------------------------------
 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Intentional distortion?
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/20/00

In article <20000520003717.15833.00000285@ng-fl1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >> (2) "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good >government and the happiness 
>of mankind, . . . shall forever be encouraged."
>(Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Art. III). <<
>
>
>Those ellipses warn us that, in such a short passage, important words have
>been cut out.  The way Kevin cites it, it sounds as though Congress was
>encouraging religion (though no specific religion).

There is nothing that can be added to this quote that would make
it acceptable to the ACLU. It clearly advances "religion" over
non-religion and belief over unbelief, in stark violation of
the myth of "separation" as invented by the Everson Court.
It says religion is "necessary" for good government and the
happiness of mankind. This makes unbelievers feel "left out"
and relegates them to a "second class" status, in stark
violation of the myth of separation as preached by the 
Court in Allegheny v. ACLU. No matter what you add to
this quote, it still shows that "separation of church and state"
was never a part of our "organic law."

>But here's how it REALLY reads: "Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge,
>being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
>the means of education shall forever be encouraged. 

Well fancy THAT! It's not enough that our organic law says that
religion is necessary for good government and the happiness
of mankind. But WHERE is religion to be advanced and inculcated?
IN SCHOOLS!! The very place the Soopreme Court
has been so anxious to rid of all Christian values! Gee, Ed --
thanks for pointing out that our nation's fundamental law
requires SCHOOLS to teach RELIGION AND MORALITY!!!

>So instead of endorsing religion, Congress endorsed education.

False. Congress CLEARLY endorses religion. It declares religion
to be NECESSARY to good government and the happiness of
mankind. What greater "endorsement" could one imagine? 
What words should Congress have used if they wanted to
endorse religion???

>There is a difference there, and one wonders why Kevin felt compelled to try
>to change the meaning of what the founders had to say.

I was setting a trap. Thanks for getting snagged.

> (Dont' take my word for it -- go read it for yourself:   
> The Avalon Project : Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 )

And don't forget to listen to legal scholars who know more than
Ed does about what our organic law means, and sets it firmly
in the context of American history. See footnote 9 of Justice Douglas' 
concurring opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, 
the case which removed prayer from public schools. He declares:

   Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. 
   The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided 
   in Article III that Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to 
   good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
   means of education shall forever be encouraged.

The "Separation of church and state" is a myth.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Intentional distortion?
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/20/00

In article <20000520050706.15807.00000360@ng-cq1.aol.com>, jcsam50@aol.com (JCSAM50) writes:

>Gee, color me confused.  I've read the excerpts & the whole quote, & I've yet
>to find the word "Christian" there.  As a matter of fact, since the Indian
>religions are quite different from Christianity, and since the Indians were
>being discussed, it seems to me that either they were talking about Indian
>religions (notice the plural) or all religions.  You, Kevin, keep inserting
>the word Christian, which
>is clearly not found there - even by you.

You can't be serious! Everyone knows that the "religion" being
talked about in America in 1787 is Christianity! You're engaging
in what is called "sophism."

General Washington issued the following orders to his troops during
the Revolutionary War:

   The commander-in-chief directs that divine service be performed 
   every Sunday at eleven o'clock in those brigades [in] which there 
   are chaplains; those which have none [are] to attend the places of 
   worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will 
   by their attendance set an example to their men. While we are 
   zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, 
   we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. 
   To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory 
   to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal 
   instances of providential goodness which we have experienced, and 
   which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, 
   demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude 
   and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.
   —George Washington, General Orders. Fitzpatrick 11:342. (1778.)

Listen to the words of John Hancock, which are quite similar to the
words of the Northwest Ordinance:

   Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order 
   and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you 
   every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [N]ot only 
   the freedom but the very existence of the republics . . . depend much 
   upon the public institutions of religion.
   Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page. 
   See also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book    
   (Boston: Lee & Shepherd, 1898), p. 269.   

   Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors   
   to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance   
   of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth   
   the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great   
   principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in   
   the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.   
   Letter to John Adams, 1790, who wrote back: "You and I agree."   
   Four Letters: Being an Interesting Correspondence Between Those   
   Eminently Distinguished Characters, John Adams, Late President of   
   the United States; and Samuel Adams, Late Governor of Massachusetts.   
   On the Important Subject of Government, (Boston: Adams and   
   Rhoades, 1802) pp. 9-10

James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution    
   [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of   
   the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they   
   impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise,   
   the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction   
   of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and   
   to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity,   
   stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase   
   penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.   
   Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot   
   pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet   
   conscience.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society   
   Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921),   
   p. 14.

Charles Carroll
Signer of the Constitution    
   Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time;   
   they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion   
   whose morality is so sublime and pure . . . are undermining   
   the solid foundation of morals, the best security for   
   the duration of free governments.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James   
   McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475.   
   In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Thomas Jefferson
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States    
   The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of   
   mankind.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.   
   I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus   
   as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on   
   April 19, 1803.

Noah Webster
Founding Educator    
   The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social   
   conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality   
   and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles   
   and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all   
   our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have   
   truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which   
   men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery   
   and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts   
   contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious   
   and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.   
   Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the   
   Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53,   
   56.

Jedediah Morse
Patriot and "Father of American Geography"    
   To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil   
   freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now   
   enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown,   
   our present republican forms of government, and all blessings   
   which flow from them, must fall with them.   
   Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April   
   25, 1799.

William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania    
   [I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper,   
   where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as   
   to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.   
  Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by   
   William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.   
  
Pennsylvania Supreme Court    
   No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity   
   is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.   
   Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth;   
   11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence    
   The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid   
   in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue   
   there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all   
   republican governments.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)   
   
   We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means   
   of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government,   
   that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of   
   Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book,   
   above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect   
   for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the   
   soul of republicanism.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp.   
   93-94.   

   By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings   
   upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the   
   human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of   
   religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible]   
   must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive   
   the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell   
   shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]   
   Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield,   
   editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to   
   John Adams, January 23, 1807.

Benjamin Franklin
   History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity   
   of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion   
   above all others, ancient or modern.   
   Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22

Justice Rehnquist writes:   
   
   Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during   
   much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published   
   by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution   
   that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the   
   Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed   
   the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:   
   
      "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the     
      amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the      
      general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity    
      ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not   
      incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom   
      of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it   
      a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have   
      created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.   
   
      . . . . .   
   
     "The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance,   
     much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by   
     prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects,   
     and to prevent any national ecclesiastical   
     establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage   
     of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious   
     persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion   
     of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been   
     trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." 

WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38, 105 (1985) In note 5, he added:   

   From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust   
   endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United   
   Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e. g.,   
   ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed   
   periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington,   
   Adams, and Jefferson.   
   Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians.   
   In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage   
   for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See   
   1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell   
   the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support   
   of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ."   
   4 Stat. 618-619. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 104

Which brings us to the utterly preposterous assertion that the Northwest 
Ordinance is talking about the Indian religions. When the Delaware Indians 
came to George Washington and asked for help in becoming civilized, 
Washington mentioned the superiority of America's national religion 
over the Indian religions:   

   You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all,   
   the religion of Jesus Christ. . . .  Congress will do everything they can   
   to assist you in this wise intention.   
   The Writings of GeoWashington, Jared Sparks, ed., (Boston: Ferdinand   
   Andrews, 1838) XV:55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs,   
   May 12, 1779.

Numerous founding charters made mention of the fact that a basic driving force 
in the settlement of North America was the conversion of the Indians to 
Christianity. Some of those charters are found here. 

Jefferson as President appropriated money to evangelize the Indians. Again, Rehnquist notes,   

   As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century,   
   Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of   
   sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical   
   of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which   
   provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest   
   and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education   
   for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided   
   thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.   
   See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp,   
   210 U.S. 50, 77-79 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under   
   the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation   
   of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of   
   the notion found in Everson that "no  tax in any amount" may be   
   levied for religious activities in any form. 
  330 U.S., at 15-16. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 104

When the Founding Fathers spoke of the "true religion" they were clearly and 
undoubtedly referrring to Christianity, and anyone who
knows the least about American history knows this to be true.


Kevin C.http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
--------------------------------------------- 

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Intentional distortion?
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/21/00

This is a reposting of an earlier post that looked garbled on my computer --
just in case it looked garbled on anyone else's (and just in case
anyone actually wanted to read it! :-)

In article <20000520050706.15807.00000360@ng-cq1.aol.com>, jcsam50@aol.com (JCSAM50) writes:

>Gee, color me confused.  I've read the excerpts & the whole quote, & I've yet
>to find the word "Christian" there.  As a matter of fact, since the Indian
>religions are quite different from Christianity, and since the Indians were
>being discussed, it seems to me that either they were talking about Indian
>religions (notice the plural) or all religions.  You, Kevin, keep inserting
>the word Christian, which
>is clearly not found there - even by you.

You can't be serious! Everyone knows that the "religion" being
talked about in America in 1787 is Christianity! You're engaging
in what is called "sophism."

General Washington issued the following orders to his troops during
the Revolutionary War:

   The commander-in-chief directs that divine service be performed 
   every Sunday at eleven o'clock in those brigades [in] which there 
   are chaplains; those which have none [are] to attend the places of 
   worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will 
   by their attendance set an example to their men. While we are 
   zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, 
   we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. 
   To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory 
   to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal 
   instances of providential goodness which we have experienced, and 
   which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, 
   demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude 
   and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.
   —George Washington, General Orders. Fitzpatrick 11:342. (1778.)

Listen to the words of John Hancock, which are quite similar to the
words of the Northwest Ordinance:

   Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order 
   and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you 
   every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [N]ot only 
   the freedom but the very existence of the republics . . . depend much 
   upon the public institutions of religion.
   Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page. 
   See also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book    
   (Boston: Lee & Shepherd, 1898), p. 269.   

   Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors   
   to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance   
   of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth   
   the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great   
   principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in   
   the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.   
   Letter to John Adams, 1790, who wrote back: "You and I agree."   
   Four Letters: Being an Interesting Correspondence Between Those   
   Eminently Distinguished Characters, John Adams, Late President of   
   the United States; and Samuel Adams, Late Governor of Massachusetts.   
   On the Important Subject of Government, (Boston: Adams and   
   Rhoades, 1802) pp. 9-10

James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution    
   [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of   
   the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they   
   impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise,   
   the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction   
   of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and   
   to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity,   
   stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase   
   penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.   
   Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot   
   pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet   
   conscience.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society   
   Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921),   
   p. 14.

Charles Carroll
Signer of the Constitution    
   Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time;   
   they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion   
   whose morality is so sublime and pure . . . are undermining   
   the solid foundation of morals, the best security for   
   the duration of free governments.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James   
   McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475.   
   In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Thomas Jefferson
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States    
   The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of   
   mankind.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.   

   I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus   
   as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on   
   April 19, 1803.

Noah Webster
Founding Educator    
   The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social   
   conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality   
   and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles   
   and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all   
   our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have   
   truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which   
   men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery   
   and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts   
   contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious   
   and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.   
   Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the   
   Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53,   
   56.

Jedediah Morse
Patriot and "Father of American Geography"    
   To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil   
   freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now   
   enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown,   
   our present republican forms of government, and all blessings   
   which flow from them, must fall with them.   
   Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April   
   25, 1799.

William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania    
   [I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper,   
   where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as   
   to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.   
  Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by   
   William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.   
  
Pennsylvania Supreme Court    
   No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity   
   is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.   
   Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth;   
   11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence    
   The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid   
   in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue   
   there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all   
   republican governments.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)   
   
   We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means   
   of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government,   
   that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of   
   Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book,   
   above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect   
   for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the   
   soul of republicanism.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp.   
   93-94.   

   By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings   
   upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the   
   human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of   
   religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible]   
   must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive   
   the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell   
   shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]   
   Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield,   
   editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to   
   John Adams, January 23, 1807.

Benjamin Franklin
   History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity   
   of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion   
   above all others, ancient or modern.   
   Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22

Justice Rehnquist writes:   
   
   Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during   
   much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published   
   by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution   
   that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the   
   Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed   
   the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:   
   
      "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the     
      amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the      
      general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity    
      ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not   
      incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom   
      of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it   
      a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have   
      created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.   
   
      . . . . .   
   
     "The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance,   
     much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by   
     prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects,   
     and to prevent any national ecclesiastical   
     establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage   
     of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious   
     persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion   
     of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been   
     trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." 

WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38, 105 (1985) In note 5, he added:   

   From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust   
   endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United   
   Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e. g.,   
   ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed   
   periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington,   
   Adams, and Jefferson.   
   Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians.   
   In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage   
   for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See   
   1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell   
   the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support   
   of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ."   
   4 Stat. 618-619. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 104

Which brings us to the utterly preposterous assertion that the Northwest 
Ordinance is talking about the Indian religions. When the Delaware Indians 
came to George Washington and asked for help in becoming civilized, 
Washington mentioned the superiority of America's national religion 
over the Indian religions:   

   You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all,   
   the religion of Jesus Christ. . . .  Congress will do everything they can   
   to assist you in this wise intention.   
   The Writings of GeoWashington, Jared Sparks, ed., (Boston: Ferdinand   
   Andrews, 1838) XV:55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs,   
   May 12, 1779.

Numerous founding charters made mention of the fact that a basic driving force 
in the settlement of North America was the conversion of the Indians to 
Christianity. Some of those charters are found here. 

Jefferson as President appropriated money to evangelize the Indians. Again, Rehnquist notes,   

   As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century,   
   Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of   
   sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical   
   of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which   
   provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest   
   and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education   
   for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided   
   thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.   
   See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp,   
   210 U.S. 50, 77-79 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under   
   the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation   
   of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of   
   the notion found in Everson that "no  tax in any amount" may be   
   levied for religious activities in any form. 
  330 U.S., at 15-16. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 104

When the Founding Fathers spoke of the "true religion" they were clearly and 
undoubtedly referring to Christianity, and anyone who
knows the least about American history knows this to be true.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
--------------------------------------------- 

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: The Northwest Ordinance
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 6/11/00

In his concurring opinion in the Engel case (the 1962 case which
removed voluntary prayer from public schools), Justice Douglas
confessed:

   Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. 
   The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided 
   in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to 
   good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
   means of education shall forever be encouraged."

In article <20000611052417.24691.00002901@ng-da1.aol.com>, ghstwrtrfx2@aol.com (Ghstwrtrfx2) posts another article from the
Separationist's Debater's Handbook which contains a ton of 
irrelevant facts and misleading opinions, none of which contradict
Justice Douglas' admission.

>During colonial times, schooling was left up to each of the colonies
>individually. With the many different religions and ways of life, schooling
>was difficult to maintain and centralize. The New England Colonies focused on
>compulsory public maintainence (1). They wanted all capable children to
>attend school to be educated to become good citizens. The Middle Colonies
>policies were that of parochial education (2). Schools
>were primarily for educating the children with powerful minds to become
>ministers, priests, or hold good offices. The Southern Colonies, on the other
>hand, didnt really have much in the line of compulsory education because of
>the ruralness of these areas. Most education in the south consisted of
>apprenticeships and the like. 

Marginally interesting, I suppose, but not a denial of Justice Douglas'
observation:

   Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. 
   The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided 
   in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to 
   good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
   means of education shall forever be encouraged."

>
>In an effort to consolidate schools and make education mandatory, Congress
>enacted the Land Ordinance of 1785. This ordinance set aside what was known
>as Section Sixteen in every township in the new Western Territory for the
>maintenance of public schools. It also allotted section number 29 for the
>purpose of religion and no more than two townships for a University. The
>separation of church and state was visible by now with the two entities being
>in
>different areas. Public schools were organized to corral the best minds for
>training for public leadership. 

"The separation of church and state was visible by now" ??
What does does this statement mean? That it wasn't visible
when the Constitution was written? That it was sort of evolving,
and wasn't really intended by the Framers of the Constitution?

>Two years later came the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance provided
>land in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions for settlement. (It
>eventually broke into five states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
>Illinois). Of particular interest is Article 3 of the ordinance, which reads
>in part: 
>
>              Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good 
>              government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
>              means of education shall forever be encouraged.
>
>The point of this document is that education is necessary to become a good
>citizen and to have a strong government. 

This is deliberately misleading. The point is not that EDUCATION
(by which the author means "secular education") is necessary
for good government and the happiness of mankind." The point
is that RELIGION, MORALITY and knowledge are necessary.
The Founding Fathers (and the rest of America) were agreed that 
to create good citizens you needed religion and morality.
Alexis de Tocqueville observed this of America:

But it is by the attention it pays to Public Education that the original character of American civilization is at once placed in the clearest light. "It being," says the law, "one chief project of Satan to keep men from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the use of tongues, to the end that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors..." Here follow clauses establishing schools in every township, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superior kind were founded in the same manner in the more populous districts. The municipal authorities were bound to enforce the sending of children to school by their parents; they were empowered to inflict fines upon all who refused compliance; and in case of continued resistance society assumed the place of the parent, took possession of the child, and deprived the father of those natural rights which he used to so bad a purpose. The reader will undoubtedly have remarked the preamble of these enactments: in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol.1, p.40 - p.41.

>Children will be encouraged to go to
>school, however religion is not specifically to be part of the curriculum.

I have no idea what the writer of this article is trying to say by that
statement. The Northwest Ordinance clearly says that religion and
morality are necessary to good government and the happiness of 
mankind, and to ensure good government and happiness, schools will
be built to teach religion, morality and knowledge. Nothing in the
law even HINTS at removing religion from the curriculum, where
it had been since the first Europeans set foot on this continent.
De Tocqueville, noting above that religion was the road to knowledge,
quoted the first compulsory education law in America, a 1642 law
designed to thwart Satan by teaching religion, called "the Old Deluder
Satan Act." 

>Schools then began to form everywhere over the next one-hundred plus years.
>Instead of township appointed teachers, they were subsidized to an extent by
>the government, and the rest by state taxes. Schools began teaching more
>that just religion, reading, and spelling. Sciences were part of the new
>curriculum. 

There's nothing "new" here. The word "knowledge" (as the Founders
were well aware) is in Latin "scientia," and sciences were clearly
in view in the NWOrdinance. Thus it is not true that schools began
to teach "more" than religion, but this admits that they WERE
teaching religion!

>Thus, the federal government was able to create a public school
>system furnished to all children, especially in the new and ever growing
>West. 
>
>It also should be noted that Jefferson wrote the NW Ordinances, 

No one questions the influence of Jefferson, as no one questions 
his influence on the Declaration of Independence. But Jefferson 
was out of step with the rest of the nation. And when Congress 
adopted the language of Jefferson's land ordinance and his draft 
of the Declaration of Independence, they were thankful for Jefferson's 
contribution, but went on to make the drafts appropriate for 
a Christian nation.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written:

     And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other 
     our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

But Congress amended it to read:

    And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on 
    the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to 
    each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 

Jefferson's views on Education were negated by Congress' 
subsequent amendment of his earlier draft of the NWOrdinance.

>and as we all
>know Jefferson was in no way in favor of even including religious instruction
>education, as his Bill for the More Diffusion of Knowledge, and his bill Bill
>for Establishing a System of Public Education are testament. 

These bills did not pass. Many of Jefferson' proposals for the University
of Virgina were rejected by the more conservative trustees and the
Virginia Legislature.

Jefferson was right, of course, that ignorance is the seed-bed of tyranny.
But so is immorality and irreligion, as the Congress which reenacted
the NWOrdinance pointed out.

>So it is absurd
>to think he changed his mind in mid-stream...and then back again. Those who
>attempt to misconstrue the NW Ordinances in supporting their view
>of a Christian Nation, obviously have not considered the context, the true
>intent, or the history behind the NW ordinances. 

Neither, apparently, has the writer of the Separationists' Debater's Handbook.

>Once more, the
>accomadationists begin their argument from a platform of ignorance.

Just as Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was modified to
fit the needs of a Christian nation, so was the Northwest Ordinance.

Religion and morality were uppermost in the minds of educators
from the early 1600's to the time of the Constitution and NWOrdinance
and for decades thereafter. The NWOrdinance meets the needs of
a nation that believed that religion is the road to knowledge, and 
the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom (De
Tocqueville).

Nothing in this Secularist article on the Northewest Ordinance refutes
in any way the overwhelming evidence that education in America
was religious. Here is some of the evidence I have posted before.

The New York Supreme Court noted that when the 14th Amendment was 
passed, "some of the State Constitutions then in force contained provisions 
forbidding sectarian instruction or the use of public funds for denominational 
schools, or both, [but] the schools were generally opened in prayer." 
This fact was not denied by the US Supreme Court. Engle v. Vitale, 18 Misc 2d 
659 at 675 (1959).

Many Christians who supported sectarian education (their own sect,
of course) accused those who promoted non-sectarian education
of being atheistic. 

    [The] Massachusetts phase . . . of the battle . . . required Horace Mann, 
    often referred to as the father of the American public school system, 
    to defend himself against a charge that as Secretary of the State Board 
    of Education, he sought to drive religion from the schools, with the denial, 
    "that I have ever attempted to exclude religious instruction from school, 
    or to exclude the Bible from school." Notwithstanding the strong current 
    of opinion [against "sectarian" education], the history of the times shows 
    that it did not extend to the exclusion of the Bible and prayer from the 
    schools. The conclusion is inevitable that [when the First and Fourteenth 
    Amendments were passed], the "sense of the nation," to revert to Madison's 
    phrase, could not be read as indicating, by ratification [of either Amendment] 
    the exclusion of the Bible or of prayer from the public schools. 
    Engel, 18 Misc 2d at 676-77

Separationists routinely ignore the conflicts between rival denominations
of Christians. Secularists continually distort this conflict into one
between religion and irreligion, Christianity and atheism. Nobody
believed that schools should be secular.

-------------------------------------
Butts & Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1953, pp. 272ff.:

The attempt to build a nonsectarian common school curriculum
In order for the ideal of a universally available, publicly supported, and publicly controlled common school to be at all workable, the teaching of sectarian religion had to be excluded from the classroom. [KC Note: this does not mean excluding all Christianity, just the denominational distinctives:] In their attempts to accomplish this by teaching the common elements of Christianity and the Bible without comment, however, the reformers encountered violent opposition from conservative religious interests and the forces allied with them. The idea that morality and character -- for many the central purposes of education -- could be included in the curriculum apart from the dogma of a sectarian faith was a difficult one for people who had recently lived under religious establishments to accept. Yet the reformers were able, in the space of a half century, to convince a majority of Americans that the plan was practical.

"The development of the nonsectarian curriculum in Massachusetts well represents the movement throughout the Union. Interestingly enough, while the general law of 1789 had enjoined teacher to exert their best endeavors to communicate piety, justice, and other virtues to children, it nowhere mentioned the teaching of religion. Although the popularity of the New England Primer had begun to wane in favor of newer material, the Bible and the Psalter were in wide use, and the law of 1789 probably represented a more general trend replacing earlier Calvinist teachings with a milder conception of Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Far from excluding religion, the law merely required the teaching of Christian principles to a Christian community.

"When the law of 1827 greatly strengthened the town school committees, the question of sectarian feeling in the selection of school books received important attention. In order to prevent undue sectarian interest in this matter, the following clause was inserted in the law: "That said committee shall never direct any school books to be purchased or used, in any of the schools under their superintendence, which are calculated to favor any particular sect or tenet." Once again, rather than excluding Christian morality from the schools, this provision obviously hoped to bar only sectarian doctrines and tenets.

"No particular attention was paid to this provision until the establishment of the Board of Education in 1837 and the appointment of Horace Mann, a Unitarian, as its secretary. When Mann and the board vigorously supported the common elements of Christianity conception, the more conservative religious groups in the state accused him of trying to introduce Unitarianism into the schools. [note: in the early 1800's, Unitarianism looked more like contemporary evangelicalism, but was clearly a departure from Puritan Calvinism.] In 1838, in a controversy over school libraries with Frederick A. Packard of the American Sunday School Union [which published public school textbooks, not just "sunday school" texts --kc], and again in 1844 and 1846, in controversies with Reverends Edward A. Newton and Matthew Hale Smith, respectively, Mann and the board were accused of conducting "godless," immoral schools which bred delinquency and vice. Throughout these continuing struggles, Mann held steadfastly to his position that the common schools were neither irreligious nor nonreligious; they were nonsectarian. If one examines the curriculum of these years, Mann's arguments were entirely borne out in practice, at least to the extent that moral instruction was non-sectarian Protestant in orientation. Very obviously, what his attackers were urging was not that religion, ethics, and morals be taught in the schools, but that their particular sectarian doctrines be taught.

"By the time of the Civil War, Mann's position enjoyed wide acceptance in most places, and universal acceptance in others. A questionnaire sent to twelve leading citizens of Massachusetts in 1851 revealed general concurrence in the conclusion that the New England system of education, while nonsectarian, was far from irreligious. Had America been entirely Protestant, there seems little doubt that well nigh universal acceptance of this policy might have been achieved by 1865. But this was not the case, and after 1840, their ranks strengthened by the mass immigrations of the 1840's and 1850's, the Roman Catholics raised growing objections. Pointing to the fact that the Protestant version of the Bible was read in schools and that this Bible, contrary to Catholic doctrine, was read without comment or interpretation, this group continued to view the public schools as sectarian. In some places temporary compromises were achieved; in others Protestants refused to heed these complaints; and in still others separate Catholic schools systems were established. Suffice it to say that before 1865 the Protestants had no adequate solution to the problem."    

   ----------==========**********O**********==========---------

The point is inescapable. The Bible was taught in public schools long after the Constitution was ratified. Even while Horace Mann was active, the New England Primer was still being used:

    That Cotton Mather's injuctions were not simply the ravings of a
    [fanatic] minister is attested by the whole content and spirit of 
    the New England Primer which was the most widely read school 
    book in America for 100 years. The best estimate is made that 
    some 3,000,000 copies were sold from 1700 to 1850.
    Butts & Cremin, p.69

The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; . . . it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
J. Rehnquist, dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
--------------------------------------------- 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7