Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 23:33 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b2d76-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I quoted part of the decision in the Holy Trinity case and Ed says, 

>>>
Come on, Kevin -- tell us what the issue was in Holy Trinity!

The U.S. government was trying to deport a preacher under a law that banned
the importing of labor (the fellow was a Brit).  From the decision, it
appears that the government's lawyers argued that the First Amendment
required the government to be hostile to Christian preachers and assume them
all suspect.  The decision said that nothing  in the Constitution should
require the federal courts to assume that Congress was hostile to religion.

The case is an imported labor case, cited most often for its interpretation
of how the Court can interpret federal law.  It is listed as a religion case
only in the fantasies of theocrats.

This case says that we should not assume that Congress is hostile toward
Christianity unless Congress explicity says so in a law.  That isn't what you
meant, is it? 
>>>

KC:
Implying, I guess, that I've taken the Holy Trinity case out of context. By
defining it as an "imported labor case" it sounds so unreasonable for me to
suggest the case says something about our interpretation of the First
Amendment. This is such a slippery approach. 

Yes, it's an "imported labor case" (whatever that classification signifies),
but the reason why the preacher could be imported contrary to the letter of
the labor law is that, according to the Court, "this is a christian nation,"
and no law can ever be interpreted to be hostile to Christianity. Not even,
as you suggest, if Congres is expressly hostile to Christianity -- the law
STILL can't be interpreted in any way hostile to Christianity because, the
Supreme Court says, "this is a Christian nation." The
 Court means that our entire social structure and legal system are based on
Christianity. It would be impossible to write or enforce a law in a manner
hostile to Christianity.

Not only is that the express holding of the court, but the Court's long
litany of State recognition and advancement of Christianity shows beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the secularist version of American history is truly a
fantasy. The Holy Trinity case is the touchstone of an honest approach to
American religious freedom jurisprudence.


Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal nation?
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 23:46 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b39e9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed:>>>Surely you do not refer to the U.S.?

KC:
Read Colin Turnbull's account of the Ik.
Wolfsong told me that modern pagans do not practice cannibalism, but I think
she may have overlooked China.<<<

   KC completely --- and conveniently --- overlooks the more than one hundred
thousand murders of innocent people branded as witches in Europe between the
1480s and 1780s by Christians.  Sounds to me like Christianity has just as
much blood on it's hands as any other religion.

One must ask themselves this question:  When in history has Christianity
ruled completely?  

Answer: Just before the beginning of the dark ages, to the 1700s.  

During this rule, mankind progressed at a slower rate than at any other time
in history.  All science discovered in ancient Greece and Rome was discarded,
many of these scientific discoveries were not to be heard from again until as
late as the late 1800s.  Even medicine was suppressed.  Women and men who
used natural/herbal cures for disease were branded as witches and hanged,
beheaded, and burned at the stake.  Christianity even condemned as basic a
health care need as bathing as "sin".  Daily bathing
 --- which the  ancient Greeks and Romans practiced --- was not to become the
norm again until the early 1900s.

So to say; the time span that Christianity ruled the world stunk, would not
be a stretch by any means.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 23:58 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b43de-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Think for one minute. The Bible plainly teaches that God ought to be
given first place in our lives. Jesus said He must be worshipped "with all
our heart, etc."<<<

This gives you no right to force it upon everyone else.

>>>The Founders taught that religion and virtue are the foundations of
freedom.<<<

HA!  Concepts such as liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
pursuit of happiness and voting for our representatives, are completely and
utterly alien to the Bible.   In fact, you can not find one concept in our
Constitution which is in the Bible.  Saying religion is the basis of freedom
is a complete oxymoron.  For religion teaches the exact opposite of freedom;
conformity.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:School prayer
misapprehen
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:02 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b47bf-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776       

Earlier posts:  >>KC:
>>>You mean, School wasn't about Christianity. Well, it was when the
Constitution was written, and for generations thereafter. And by teaching
about Christianity, schools taught kids that Christianity was important,
which is what the FOundnig Fathers taught. Now schools teach that
Christianity is not important.<<<

LTS:
How so?  I want verifiable proof.  Staying neutral on the matter of religion
is not undermining the Christian faith.

KC:
See Barton. See my web page. This is a no-brainer. This is what all
thecontroversy over the "prayer and Bible in schools" cases is all about.
Look at the McGuffey readers. Look at Webster's primers. <<

See my earlier posts.  School was not about Christianity in the one or two
public schools that existed in 1787, and even in many of the schools in
Massachusetts set up under the Congregationalists' "Old Deluder Satan" Bill,
schools run in churches by preachers were NOT about Christianity.  They were,
as the law required, about learning to read, to be good citizens.  

KC:
But to read WHAT?!?!? What Book do we need to know in order to not be
"deluded by Satan"?? (as the law stated)  Answer: the Bible.

ED:
David Barton lacks accuracy.  To put it bluntly, he makes things up.  

KC:
Name one thing he "made up."

ED:
If you consult his own homepage (Wallbuilders), you'll see he has the
courtesy to confess to several of the inaccurate quotes he's been peddling
for some years.  

KC:
He and many other people. No one has ever proven that those quotations were
never or could not possibily have been uttered by those to whom they are
attributed. Many secondary sources attribute the statements to the individual
(I'm thinking primarily of the Madison quote re: the Ten Comandments, which I
filed in a court document before Barton told me he hadn't verified it in any
primary documents.) All Barton has done is warned Christians not to use
quotes which cannot be found in a primary source
 document because Secularists will use that as an excuse not to listen. But
it is not the case that Barton is simply making them up. In all probability,
they are accurate, spoken in a speech or something not recorded.

ED:
Barton is not a peace-loving patriot; he makes much of his money speaking to
and selling stuff to some of the wacko militias that spawn so much trouble.
Call Klanwatch and ask for their comments on Barton.  For a math teacher,
he's made a lot of money.  

KC:
Oh brother, talk about not peace loving. And Money?!?! So. Poverty law center
has war chest of $20 million!! Makes Barton look like a pauper. How much
money has Barton made?

ED:
As to McGuffey's Readers, Webster, etc, I detailed in an earlier post that
these are part of the continuing trend to better education that de-Biblicized
school curricula.  To teach kids to read better, these books moved farther
and farther away from scripture and Bible language.  

KC:
THis is like saying the New American Standard Bible is more secular because
it departs from the Kimg James Version.

ED:
As Americans could afford better ways to teach kids to read, Americans
abandoned the Bible as a reader.  It was never the intention of frontier
schools to teach Christianity.

Hope to see a response next weekend, KC.

KC:
The Northwest Ordinance *required* frontier schools to teach religion. Noah
Webster did not secularize reading. Barton republished some of his writings.
Only one of Barton's quotations from Webster is disputed (that is, based on
an otherwise reliable *secondary* source). Read the others. The man and his
readers were fanatically Christian. As he put it,

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct
republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the
Christian religion."




Subject: Re:Mistake on the law
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:14 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b5280-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776:
KC said:  >>The Bible says God's Word should be spoken of when you get up,
and when you retire, when you're going here or going there -- in other words,
at all times and places. (Deut 6:7f.) Secular school says that's mistaken.
Secular schools say that God's claim can be ignored with impunity. <<

"Secular school" says no such thing.  The law is clear:  Kids can pray when
and where they want to.  

KC: Sounds so libertarian and tolerant. Too bad it's not true. The mythology
of early american secularism creates hostility toward children who pray:

One court ruled that if a student prays over his lunch, it is
"unconstitutional" if he prays aloud (Reed v. VanHoven, 237 FSupp 48)

Another court ruled that a student was prohibited from reading his Bible
silently during free time, or even to open his Bible at school. (Gierke v.
Blotzer, CV-88-0-883, USDC Neb 1989)

The Rutherford Institute exists only to try to bring sense to the fantasy
world undergirding these horror stories.

ED:
Secular schools say nothing about God's claims, 

KC:
Thereby denying their authority. If God says "You must do X immediately," and
you say, I'm not going to say that's true or false, I'm going to remain
"neutral," you have denied the authority of God. Secular schools, by their
very nature, and by their silence, deny that God must be the focus of our
learning.

ED:
We see once again that the advocates of "christian nationality" have no
compunction against violating the Ninth Commandment in their drive for
tyranny.  Nor should we be surprised.

KC: 
Our drive for limited government, you mean. Our drive for less crime, less
lives destroyed by STD's, drugs, illiteracy. Our drive to allow the goals of
the Founders to be realized, for the foundations of "republican government"
to be taught by our schools.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:25 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b5a62-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776:
KC said:  >>The government -- even when secular -- has granted freedom for
Amish to say "affirm" instead of "swear," and Indians to take an oath on a
peace pipe instead of the Bible. You, LTS, cannot even be this magnanimous.
Why does the voluntary taking of an oath that meets an individual's religious
requirements threaten you so? What have you got against religious freedom?<<

Can you say the oath you request is in the same category as the Amish's
affirmation?

KC:
In what sense?

ED:
In a Reconstructionist world, do Amish have any rights at all?

KC:
I consider Amish to be reconstructionists: they reject the agenda of the
liberal secular establishment and are "reconstructing" every area of their
lives according to Biblical blueprints. I have had amish stay in my home for
a few weeks. I've always been a big fan of the uncharacteristically
libertarian case of Wisconsin v Yoder. (strategically limited years later by
Lee and other anti-Amish cases.)

But of course, your question was merely rhetorical slander, not an inquiry
into my personal feelings about the Amish or the law relating to them. Right?
:-)



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:28 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b5df2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776, commenting on Delaware's oath:

As I pointed out before, at least one state had made such oaths illegal
(Virginia) -- and I believe if you check you will find all thirteen colonies
had made it legal for people of many faiths to hold office years before the
Constitution.  

KC:
THis is incorrect. They weren't legally eliminated (if anything the SupCt
does is "legal") until 1961.

ED:
Immediately after the Declaration of Independence, the individual colonies
set about restructuring their laws and inventing government anew, with no
monolithic view to religion, economics, governance, elections, taxes, or
anything else.  If North says that the delegates to the Constitution were
required to swear fealty to Christianity, the good Doctor errs.  

KC:
THen so did the Supreme Court in 1961 when it felt called to rule such oaths
unconstitutional.




Subject: Re:Mistake on the law
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:32 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b604d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>One court ruled that if a student prays over his lunch, it is
"unconstitutional" if he prays aloud (Reed v. VanHoven, 237 FSupp 48)<<<

Ah, I see that you cannot be trusted.  This has been overturned and you know
it.  This was NOT a supreme court decision, yet you present it to promote
fear.  This shows a contemptible lack of integrity.

>>>Another court ruled that a student was prohibited from reading his Bible
silently during free time, or even to open his Bible at school. (Gierke v.
Blotzer, CV-88-0-883, USDC Neb 1989)<<<

This too has been overturned.  Neither Ed nor I stand for this kind of
discrimination and you know it.  Yet you throw out these moot decisions as if
they are laws of the land. 

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS




Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:47 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b6a17-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed>>>As I pointed out before, at least one state had made such oaths
illegal (Virginia) -- and I believe if you check you will find all thirteen
colonies had made it legal for people of many faiths to hold office years
before the Constitution.<<<  

KC:
>>>THis is incorrect. They weren't legally eliminated (if anything the SupCt
does is "legal") until 1961.<<<

Even if this were so, they were unconstitutional since the ratification of
the Constitution,and especially since the ratification of the fourteenth
amendment.  Just because a state or two gets away with violating the
constitution, does not make that violation constitutional.  It just means the
violation wasn't challenged in court. On the same note, just because a man
gets away with murder, does not make murder legal.

For years southern states inhibited blacks right vote with poll taxes,
literacy tests, and flat out intimidation and even violence, did that make it
constitutional?  No.

Ever wonder why you're losing in court?  Because even a man with no law
degree such as myself can see your arguments are pathetic.  

                                                   Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS



Subject: Theocracy and Deism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:48 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b6bb2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
>>>KC:>.It used to be the case in America that one could not hold any public
office, including that of attorney, unless one was a Christian. One could not
even testify in court if one espoused Deism or any other "form of infidelity"
(to use the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1844). 
>>

How horrible!!  And certainly illegal!  

KC:
Not until the revisionism of the 1961 Supreme Court.

Wolfsong:
So many of our founders were Deists, this is absolutely amazing.  

KC:
What is a "deist?"
Best described by the "clockmaker theory," that God (Who DOES exist, by the
way, even for the Deist) wound the universe up like a clock, and now allows
it to tick away, without intervening. Now if you accept this definition (and
I can't see how you can reject it) then I challenge you to name one Founder
who believed this and called himself a Deist.

Not Franklin. He called himself a "deist," but the word had a different
meaning for him that most secularists who say the Founders were mostly
"deists." At the Constitutional Convention Franklin made a motion for prayer
to God to intervene in the proceedings, noting that God judges empires that
are not following Him. He sharply criticised Tom Paine's book, urged him not
to print it, and wrote to him, "If men are so wicked WITH religion, what
would they be WITHOUT it?" Franklin cannot be appealed to in
 support of a religion-less government.

Jefferson said he was a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a
disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." He did not say he was a deist. 

Now, for every Founder you can marshal an argument saying he was a deist,
I'll give you  5 who said deism was contrary to American ideals, including a
ruling of the US Supreme Court in 1844.

The overwhelming majority of the Founders were NOT deists, and a majority of
those who drafted and ratified the constitution were not deists, and the
majority of states made it illegal for someone who was not a Christian to
hold political office, and the US Supreme Court's definition of "separation
of church and state" is demonstrably false.

Wolfsong says we have eliminated the requirement that politicians have good
Christian character, and adds:
Thank God we have come to our senses.

KC:
That, of course, would be "unconstitutional."



Subject: Re:Inherant Difficulties
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:49 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b6c7d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>Let's just start with the obvious. 4,000 babies are murdered each day. The
government passes out condoms in schools instead of Bibles.
>.
Wolfsong:
Well, condoms have a much better chance of preventing those unwanted
pregnancies than the Bible does.  But, first, provide some proof that condoms
are being passed out?  Where, and under what circumstances?

KC:
"School-based clinics"



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:55 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b6fa4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Witchward:
<<<KC:
Personally, I don't, but the Founding Fathers did.>>>

Okay KC, PROVE IT! And don't quote Barton who has been proven a LIAR and
unreliable source!

KC:
Barton has NOT been "proven" a LIAR and unreliable source. A dozen out of
hundreds and hundreds of quotations from the founding fathers were retracted
because they could not be found in primary sources. As the Separation of
Church&State Home page admits, however, at least one of these retracted
quotes was later documented in primary sources! Others may soon be documented
as well. There is nothing wrong with citing secondary sources. Barton just
wants to go with the best evidence.

All it takes to prove that Barton's version of American history is
light-years closert to the truth than the Supreme Court's secularized version
is to read the 1892 SupCt ruling in Holy Trinity. The long list of government
laws and activities prove that the separation of Christianity from government
was never intended by any of the founding fathers. 

http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm

It is a lie to say Barton has been proven "unreliable."

I will continue to use his book on this board.



Subject: Theocracy and Math
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 00:59 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b72d7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
Kevin>>The whole point of schools and education was to teach the Christian
religion. >>

So why math then?

KC:
In order to obey God's Law in every area of our lives, we must know math.
Like we must know how to walk. Consider this example:

Leviticus 25:8-10  'And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself,
seven times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be
to you forty-nine years. {9} 'Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee
to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you
shall make the trumpet to sound throughout all your land. 

Now, in order to obey this law, you have to know how to count. So, Christian
schools teach math. Do Hindu schools teach math? I don't know why they
should. "All is One. Ommmmmmm."

Oh, BTW, the next verse in Leviticus?

{10} 'And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty
throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for
you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall
return to his family.

Find it on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. 



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Deism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:00 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b7332-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Jefferson said he was a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that is
to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." He did not say he was a deist.
<<<

Again I have caught you in a blatant misrepresentation.  Jefferson was only
saying that he followed the morals of Christianity. (which in itself can be
said to be laughable, as Jefferson was clearly not a chaste man)  Jefferson
clearly DID NOT believe in the divinity of Christ.  Here he states the
"Doctrines" or teachings of Jesus, and does not claim worship.  Before you
make a larger fool of yourself, I suggest ordering the Jefferson Bible and
find this out for yourself.  Or does your outright
 revisionism know no bounds?

This is almost as blatant as your claiming that the word religion in the
first amendment really mean "denomination".

Didn't Ed say something about the ninth commandment before?

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)



Subject: Re:Inherant Difficulties
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:05 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b78b2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Wolfsong:
Well, condoms have a much better chance of preventing those unwanted
pregnancies than the Bible does.  But, first, provide some proof that condoms
are being passed out?  Where, and under what circumstances?

KC:
"School-based clinics"<<<

They are only given to students who request them.  Not one district makes
them available in any other fashion.

A recent study confirmed that students in school districts that make condoms
available have sex at a rate no higher than students in school districts that
do not.  So there goes that argument.

                                                   Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                 LTS



Subject: Theocracy and
Cannibalism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:06 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b7904-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:

>>KC: In a pagan cannibalistic nation, it is approved. >>

Liar!!  Pagans do NOT advocate murder.  Cannibalistic?  Rare "nations" were
cannibalistic, I suppose, but do NOT try and connect that with modern-day
Paganism.

KC:
I enthusiastically repudiate any connection between cannibals and modern
pagans. (Except the Chinese communists.)

But here's the legal question. Suppose a modern cannibal wants to devour you,
Wolfsong. Would I be "intolerant" if I passed a law against your death, based
on the Commandment "thou shalt not kill?" According to the modern secular
Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional to do so. But according to an
earlier court, it would not have. When Mormons challenged anti-polygamy laws
based on the First Amendment, the Supreme Court said there was only religous
freedom for Christians. "Christian nations" have
 always prohibited polygamy, the Court ruled, and we're not going to stop
now. 

This shows that there is (was) no "separation of church and state." 

It also shows that it is impossible to have pure religious freedom. All law
is the establishment of a religion. Law will either favor cannibalism or
favor Christianity, but it cannot remain "neutral" on the issue. Jefferson
and Madison would agree with this, adding that it was wrong to have
government taxation to support a particular ecclesiastical denomination. I
agree.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:07 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b797c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>I will continue to use his book on this board.<<<

And we will continue to discredit it.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and
Cannibalism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:18 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b80e7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>But here's the legal question. Suppose a modern cannibal wants to
devour you, Wolfsong. Would I be "intolerant" if I passed a law against your
death, based on the Commandment "thou shalt not kill?" According to the
modern secular Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional to do so. But
according to an earlier court, it would not have.<<<

Oh Kevin, how absolutely silly.  The laws pertaining to murder have more to
do with such an act violating the victim's civil rights than they do with
religion.  Isn't it funny that just because some laws preserving civil rights
and order have something in common with the Bible, Christians claim them to
be solely Christian in nature?  Kevin, nearly every religion in the world has
commandments against murder and theft, as they are common sense laws made to
preserve order.  By your reasoning atheists would
 murder and thieve at a rate higher than Christians.  They do not.  In fact
exactly the opposite is true.  So there goes that silly argument.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:25 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b853a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

From:  LTsurviver      

>>>Judeo/Christian belongs everywhere.<<<

Than so does Islam, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhism, Native American beliefs
(they were here first you know), Santarea, New Age, and any other religion I
can't think of right now.

TOO BAD YOU CAN'T FIND A DEBATE GROUP.  MANY HAVE COME TO THEIR SENSES
THROUGH THESE.

If you decide to truly study Scripture you will find a rude but refreshing
awakening.

I know som lovely Muslims, Native Americans.    We have no problem.
Discussion is open.  All agree to discuss and leave as friends.  Too bad it
is not this way on the boards.



Subject: Theocracy and Freedom
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:31 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b878c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
Kevin>>The question asked by the Founding Fathers is, Which religion brings
freedom and national prosperity? Their answer was unanimous: Christianity.>>

Show definitively where they said that.  

KC:
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE: "Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious
aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the
longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political
consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was
unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and
the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other;
but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they
 reigned in common over the same country. p.337 

---The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so
intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the
one without the other. p.335 

--Religion in America...must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the
political institutions of that country. p.334 

---They brought with them...a form of Christianity, which I cannot better
describe, than by styling it a democratic and republican religion...From the
earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an
alliance which has never been dissolved. p.328 

---I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their
religion; for who can search the human heart? but I am certain that they hold
it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This
opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs
to the whole nation, and to every rank of society. p.334 

---Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal
consent." p.333 (The Republic of the United States of America and Its
Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., Vol 1,
pages as listed above, Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851)


Noah Webster:
The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and
his apostles . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.

Ben Franklin:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and
vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Any nation where an entertainer calling himself "Sid Vicious" is popular
will find itself with the likes of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and the BATF, and
other "masters.")

John Hancock:
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. . . . Manners, by which not only the freedom
but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much
upon the public institutions of religion.


Want zillions more quotes? See Barton, Original Intent, ch 17, and pp.
165-172 or thereabouts.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:31 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8791-at-3469db67@aol.com>

JSojourner

Your "liveral" Christianity has no place in comparison with some of your
statements.

Please clearify.  If you ARE Christian, then where is your Biblical training?
If you are involved in matters of pleasing the world - what is your purpose?


Can any of us be honestly stradling the creek, one foot on one side and the
other on the opposite side?   I think not.  Take a stand and root yourslf
there.   



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:33 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b882c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTsurviver:
>>>KC: Secular governments do not have Jesus' approval.<<<

Nor did murderous theocratic governments.

Come to think of it, I don't remember reading about Jesus advocating stoning
for any offense.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS

KC:
You don't "remember?" You mean you've *read* the Bible? :-) How about Matthew
15:4.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:35 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8886-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Children are taught to report on how their family functions.  (It is
NOT the business of the State)
Children are being taught not English, Arithmetic, Geography, The
constitution, 
but authorities are skirting around these issues.  Ask them which direction
New York is in.  Parents get all types of answers.  There are many tings
wkrong with Goals 2000, and otehr modes with no thanks to the NATIONAL
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION which we should do without.



Subject: Condoms
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:41 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8b5e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTsurviver:
>>>KC: Let's just start with the obvious. 4,000 babies are murdered each day.
The government passes out condoms in schools instead of Bibles.
>>>

Wolf:>>>Well, condoms have a much better chance of preventing those unwanted
pregnancies than the Bible does.  But, first, provide some proof that condoms
are being passed out?  Where, and under what circumstances?<<<

True Wolf.  Condoms are only made available to students.  

KC:
As if this limits the egregious nature of government folly?

LTS:
They most certainly are not passed out.  

KC:
What kind of nonsense is this? They are not "passed out"? How do they move
from the hands of school adminstrators to the hands of students? Your article
says the following:

The Associated Press
N E W   Y O R K,  Sept. 30 ? Students given access 

                                         but not "passed out"

to free condoms in high school . . . .

The study also found that the free distribution 

                                         but not "passed out"

had a modest but significant increase on students' condom use. 
  
New York City's schools in 1991 became the first in the nation to hand out
condoms. 

                                         but not "pass out"

Since then, many other cities have followed suit. In 1994, the Board of
Education amended its policy, allowing parents to notify the school if they
did not want their children to receive condoms. 

                                         which were not "passed out"

"This is a very low cost AIDS prevention program," said Sally Guttmacher, an
associate professor at New York University School of Education's Department
of Health Studies and the principal investigator of the study. "It's true
that while there is only a modest effect, we have found that making condoms
available doesn't do harm and does some good." 

                                         available, but not "passed out"   

  A total of 7,119 students from 12 randomly selected New York high schools
were questioned, as were 5,738 students from 10 high schools in Chicago,
which does not have a free condom giveaway program. 

                                         given away, but not "passed out"
   
Let's face it. When the government will not allow students to read the Bible
in school, are not allowed to see the words "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"
but engages in a "free condom giveaway program," we have the ideals of the
Founders turned on its head. This is insanity.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:42 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8c40-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>KC: Secular governments do not have Jesus' approval.<<<

LTS:>>>Nor did murderous theocratic governments.
Come to think of it, I don't remember reading about Jesus advocating stoning
for any offense.<<<

KC:
>>>You don't "remember?" You mean you've *read* the Bible? :-) How about
Matthew 15:4.<<<

LOL, you continuously asked me to to provide evidence that the Bible
advocates murdering unruly children, yet here you post it yourself.  By the
way, it doesn't say stoning.  It only says to "let him surely die"  

                                                      Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Kevin and Barton
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:45 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8e7e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

From: Wolfsong        

>>Barton himself admitted that many of the quotes and claims used in the
original book are bogus, 

KC:
"MANY" ?? Where is this admission. 
Try "a couple" or "a handful," or "several out of THOUSANDS in the book.">>

So, Kevin, a handful of lies told to convince people that the founding
father's intended this to be a Christian nation are ok?  How many lies would
it have to be to be not OK?  What happened to Biblical rules against lying?

KC: You deliberately cut my post off. I went on to say that none of these
quotations were "lies," they were taken from secondardy sources, and Barton
wants to prove his undeniable thesis using only primary source materials.

If morality and knowledge (to quote the Northwest Ordinance) were not so
abysmally low, this argument would be hysterical. I mean, here's someone
criticising Barton for using secondary sources, when she herself, I would
wager, has never read Barton's book for herself!!

In fact, is there a single secularist on this Christian board who has
actually read Barton's book,
The Myth of Separation, or Original Intent? Everyone criticizes Barton for
using secondary sources, and where do they get their information about
Barton? -- from a secondary source!!!!

Unbelievable.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:46 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b8f08-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Children are taught to report on how their family functions.  (It is
NOT the business of the State)<<<

So the schools should not look out for child abuse?  This is the only reason
schools are ever interested in the child's home life.

>>>Children are being taught not English, Arithmetic, Geography, The
constitution, <<<

Name one school in which these topics are not in the curriculum.  Bet you
can't.

>>>Ask them which direction New York is in.<<<

North by northeast from me.  Why?

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b92da-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTsurviver      

>>KC: The Founders, like John Jay, wanted politicians to be Christians so
that they WOULD NOT be fascists and would not engage in forcible repression.
>>

You still haven't explained John Jay's fascist push to exile all Catholics
from the state of New York.  I suggest you don't use Jay any more.

KC:
How about Charles Charroll, the only Roman Catholic signer of the Declaration
of Indep:
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.

I will continue to quote John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist
Papers and first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, because the
constitution gives the States the right to be baptist states, or presbyterian
states or catholic states. Catholics and presbyterians are united in their
opposition to secularists undermining the government by attacking
Christianity.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the 10
comm
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b94a3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
Kevin>. I wasn't intending to slander, just expose the real issues in this
debate.
>>

Oh, and just what does LTS's illness, or indeed his imagined adultry, had it
existed, do to "expose the real issues in this debate."  I thought the debate
was church and state, apparently you think it is health?

KC:
No, morality. The reason secularists have dreamed up the current myth of
"separation of church and state" (which is an assault on religion; not any
particular church, just all of them) is because they do not want to be
reminded in schools and other public institutions that God forbids adultery
and judges our conduct.



Subject: Re:Condoms
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:53 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b94b7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Let's face it. When the government will not allow students to read
the Bible in school, are not allowed to see the words "Thou shalt not commit
adultery," but engages in a "free condom giveaway program," we have the
ideals of the Founders turned on its head. This is insanity.<<<

Name a time in history when teenagers did not have sex.  You can't. 

By the way, I noticed you completely ignored the fact that making free
condoms available did not increase the sexual activity of the students.  In
one week, you have already attempted to revise history right before our eyes.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Indians
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:56 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b96f4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
>>LTS:
Oh yeah?  Just where is the entire Aztec empire now?  Serving burritos at
Taco Bell because they were "trained" by Christians?  I think not.

KC:
How about, until his recent death, CEO of Coca-Cola.>>

He was an Aztec??!!???!

KC:
I don't know about that, but he was Latino, a member of one of those South
American peoples "oppressed" by Christopher ("Christ-bearer") Columbus and
the Christian West. That was the point of the thread.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 01:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b97eb-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:

Kevin>> The State will not permit me to take an oath which is in accord with
Biblical requirements,>>

Where does the Bible mention the practice of law in California, and what oath
you should swear?

KC:
The Bible sets down rules concerning swearing an oath. Those rules were
followed by those who drafted the Delaware Constitution. I want to follow
those rules. The State of California will not let me.

http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/04parable.htm



Subject: Theocracy and
Reconstruction
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:02 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b9a3b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>Reconstructionists do not advocate Judaism. Even Acts 15 does not rule out
all of the OT, as verses 20-21 indicate. The question is not Talmudic
liturgies and rabbinic traditions, the question is public prohibitions of
Biblically-defined crimes. The question is whether politicians have a duty to
obey the Bible.

USsol:
Nor was that the question before the ancient Church. The issue was whether
the OT Law is required of Christians for their salvation. The answer was a
resounding No, and the contrary opinion, which Reconstructionists preach, was
condemned over and over again as a heresy. 

KC:
Reconstructionists do not preach that the OT law is required for salvation.
Whatever secondary source you are relying on for your info is inaccurate.

However, faith without works is dead, and good works are defined by the Old
Testament (as well as the New) 2 Tim 3:15-17



Subject: Theocracy and the Cold
War
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:07 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005b9d30-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>The "completion of the Cold War" is a myth:

USsol:
I'm having a great deal of trouble taking you seriously when you post this
sort of nonsense (to use a polite word!)

KC: 
Reality is sometimes hard to swallow:

"Speaking of fiction, imagine, if you will, a post-Nazi Germany 
headed by 'democratic reformers' such as Hermann Goering 
and Heinrich Himmler. Imagine these 'former' Nazis, who had 
committed monstrous crimes against humanity, being entrusted 
with the affairs of state in the new 'democratic' Germany. 
Imagine, too, an unholy alliance between the triumphant Allies 
and the 'former' Nazi leaders. 

"That is not the way it happened, of course. In his new book 
*The Perestroika Deception,* KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn 
explains that 'After the Second World War the victorious allies 
correctly applied a denazification programme to eliminate former 
Nazis and their influence from the institutions and political life of 
the new Germany.' Yet, Golitsyn continues, 'No equivalent 
decommunisation programme has been applied in the USSR 
or Eastern Europe.' There also have not been any equivalent 
'Nuremberg' trials for Communist criminals who ruled with an 
iron fist. How can this be -- unless the much-trumpeted 
'demise of Communism' is not what it seems? 

"The 'Overview' article beginning on the next page supplies 
the answer, based on the analyses and predictions of Golitsyn, 
arguably the West's most valuable Soviet defector. 
According to Golitsyn: The 'liberalization' and 'democratization' 
of the 'former' Soviet Bloc are disinformation ploys designed 
to beguile the West into supporting Communist objectives, 
including not only accommodation and concession but an 
eventual convergence of nations in a one-world government. 
Viewed in this light, even so dramatic a development as 
the reunification of Germany makes perfect sense. Why 
worry about the temporary 'loss' of half a country when 
the prize is the entire world? 

"Fantastic? Not when you examine the evidence. Not when 
you consider that in his 1984 book *New Lies for Old* Golitsyn 
predicted not only the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the 
reunification of Germany but many other startling developments 
creating the impression of Communism's demise."
>>>>>>


From this Christian anarcho-pacifist's favorite website:

http://jbs.org/vo11no19.htm

That's right, JBS. Great stuff. The "fall of communism" is a ruse.

(For a dissenting view on the Allies' alleged "de-nazification," see:

http://www.rarefaction.com/archives/rfa.html#rfa37

If anyone would like a copy of this issue of the JBS magazine
(on the myth of the fall of communism), email me. I have extras.




Subject: Re:Theocracy and the 10
comm
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:16 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ba1a8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>No, morality. The reason secularists have dreamed up the current
myth of "separation of church and state" (which is an assault on religion;
not any particular church, just all of them) is because they do not want to
be reminded in schools and other public institutions that God forbids
adultery and judges our conduct.<<<

No, it's because some don't believe in the same god you believe in, and other
don't believe in any god at all.  How selfish of you to try and impose your
specific religion upon others.

                                                      Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Indians
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:23 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ba544-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>I don't know about that, but he was Latino, a member of one of those
South American peoples "oppressed" by Christopher ("Christ-bearer") Columbus
and the Christian West. That was the point of the thread.<<<

No, Latinos are mixed Spanish/Native American (more Spanish than Native
American) .  They are hardly pure south American natives.  To call then such
is an insult to the few tribes that remain.

By the way, your touted "Christ bearer" brought syphilis and smallpox to the
new world, killing millions of innocent Native Americans throughout the
Americas.  What a Christian offering that was!

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:29 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ba8eb-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>> the constitution gives the States the right to be baptist states,
or presbyterian states or catholic states.<<<

Not according to the tenth and fourteenth amendments which were ratified by
the states.  They expressly state that no state shall make or enforce laws
contrary to the Constitution.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:32 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005baa56-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>Well, my citation of legal codes certainly can't compete for historical
accuracy with Nate Hawthorne.

USsol:
Legal codes often contain anachronisms which are never enforced. There has
never been a single instance in the whole history of this nation when anyone
was put to death under civil law for either adultery or homosexuality.

KC:
"The whole history of this nation." Most secularists are utterly ignorant of
the "whole history" of this nation, especially when it comes to the influence
of Christianity upon it.

A History of American Law by Lawrence M. Friedman (Simon &
Schuster, Touchstone) 1985.

Page 69 & 70 comments on The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts
(1648) and those "blood-thirsty" early American Theonomists(!)

"Neither in theory nor in practice was colonial law very bloodthirsty. 
There were fewer capital crimes on the books than in England....
The death penalty was not carried out very frequently in the colonies.  In
Massacchusetts Bay, for example, it was a capital crime to "curse" or
"smite" one's father or mother; but nobody was put to death for such
offenses. One  study found a total of forty executions in the colonies,
before 1660.  The figure is perhaps a bit understated; but  it does not
suggest wholesale carnage.  There were fifteen executions in
Massachusetts in the period; four for murder, two for infanticide, two for
adultery, two for witchcraft, one for "buggery";
four Quakers were also put to death."

On these statistics, Friedman cites the following source:
Bradley Chapin, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA, 1606-1660
(1983) p. 58

And by the way, on the same page Friedman says:
"Famous periods of hysteria, such as the notorious Salem episode,
beginning in 1692, have unduly blackened the colonial reputation.  In this
"terrible assize" nineteen persons were put to death; fifty or so were
tortured or terrified into confessions."

Further on page 584, Friedman says:
"Colonial law, as we saw, was much concerned with sexual conduct,
especially fornication.  The early 19th century was a dead  point, a lull in
the war against vice... Adultery (for example) remained a crime; but its
nature was subtly redefined.  In some states it was illegal only if it was
"open and notorious; this was true in California, for example.  What was
illegal, then, was not sin itself - certainly not secret sin - but sin that
offended PUBLIC (Friedman's emphasis)  morality.... a certain toleration
for vice (remained) so long as it remained in an underground state."


This is the theory behind the Reconstructionists urging of Capital
Punishment.
According to Rushdoony, 

To the humanistic mind these penalties seem severe and unnecessary. In
actuality, the penalties, **together with the Biblical faith which motivated
them,** worked to reduce crime. Some laws secure their desired effect without
any necessity for prosecution. (Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 236)

Thus when the State says, "It is wrong to rape according to The God of the
Bible, and the penalty for rape is death," then rape goes down. It is not
necessary to execute anyone. However, when the secular state says, "It is
wrong to quote the God of the Bible when He says "thou shalt not rape," then
guess what -- rape increases!    Duh.   And we are supposed to say we have
"more freedom" because the State never quotes the Bible, and we are afraid to
walk outside at night?




Subject: More on capital
punishment
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:37 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bab79-at-3469db67@aol.com>

You Madison/Jefferson afficionadoes, who advocate "strict separation"
of religion and government, might be interested in the observation of the US
Supreme Court in 1878:

 It is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, *after* the
passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and *after* the convention
of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States the delaration in a bill of rights that "all men have an equal,
natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates of conscience," the legislature of that State substantially
enacted the  . . . death penalty [for polygamy].

The Supreme Court stated this in its ruling against the Mormons.

The ACLU, who has done so much to orchestrate the modern myth of "separation
of church and state," responded to a California proposal to stress Christian
values about marriage in sex ed classes.

"It is our [ACLU] position that teaching that monogamous, heterosexual
intercourse within marriage  as a traditional American value is an
uinconstitutional establishment of a religious doctrine in public schools.
There are various religions which hold contrary beliefs with respect to
marriage and monogamy. We believe [this bill] violates the first Amendment."

The Founders did not.

(Jefferson proposed "castration" as the penalty for sodomy [Notes on Virg., Q
XIV]).




Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:40 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bacee-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
Had they respected a legal search/arrest warrant, and not opened fire on law
enforcement officers, they would not have been fired upon.

KC:
Wrong. The govt assault was premeditated and unjustified.

So you're saying the government would have opened fire no matter what the
davidians did?   If you are, you are making this up as you go along.  Your
affection for absurd and unfounded conspiracy theories undermines your
credibility severely.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:45 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb01c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC: >>>The "War on Drugs" is a ruse. A complete disregard of the 4th
Amendment. The gov't rakes in billions dealing drugs and the "war" is a
power-grab. See:
http://www.jbs.org/vo13no22.htm#Battle+Lines+in+the+Drug+War
Next you'll be happy when U.N. Soldiers are on every street corner. See:
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no20.htm

How absurd.  There are over a thousand web sites claiming to have "proof"
that the Holocaust never happened.  Are you going to believe them too?  Do
you swallow everything that is posted on the web that seem to confirm your
absurd theories?  You're beginning to look very gullable.

                                                      Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:47 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb0e6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>You support his execution for these alleged, unproven crimes?

USsol:
He was not executed. He and his followers committed suicide. They could have
left that compound at any time. They chose instead to stay and, rather than
surrender, to die by their own hands.

KC:
Completely inaccurate. Unsupported by facts, only government disinformation.
See the "Rules of Engagement" video. Those attempting to leave were gunned
down. The state deliberately sealed off exits. Many who died were crushed by
concrete when gov't tanks purposefully sealed off the exit to "the bunker."
Former US Attorney General Ramsay Clark has confirmed this, and has filed
civil suits on behalf of the Davidians.

http://www.wco.com/~dragon22/ramseyclark1.html

Waco represents the kind of government tyranny that prompted the American
Revolution. You are on the wrong side in this argument!



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:51 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb23f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>It is interesting that your approach to law enforcement is similar
to your approach to the First Amendment. The 1st Am says that the FEDERAL
govt cannot make laws, and powers to do so rest, as Jefferson said, "with the
states.<<<

Oh my what a crock!!!   The First Amendment says NO such thing.  There goes
the last lingering thread of credibility you had.  Did you really think
people are ignorant enough to buy this line?

  "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."

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:58 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb508-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Koresh was not psychotic.<<<

By who's standards?  Yours?  

>>>The Davidians had fewer arms per capita than the Texas average.<<<

This is utterly false.  I thought it was a sin to lie according to your
religion.

>>>Your support of statist violence is staggering.<<<

Had the davidians not opened fire, there would of been no violence.

>>> Find the video called "Rules of Engagement."Don't rely on mainstream
secular TV.<<<

Right.  I'm supposed to believe rightwing paranoid conspiracy theory
claptrap?  You obviously have had your fill of it.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:RRR History
Revisionists
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 02:59 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb515-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTsurviver:

1.  Whitehead, John W. The Second American Revolution. 1982.   "Any law which
contradicts biblical revelation is illegitimate" (p. 74).  Whitehead, founder
of the Rutherford Institute, believes in a "higher" law: "The higher law is
clearly expressed in God's revelation as ultimately found in the Bible. . . .
The higher law values of the Declaration [of Independence] are incorporated
into
the Constitution by its preamble.  If we recognize that the Constitution
presupposes the Declaration and the higher, fundamental law to which the
Declaration witnessed, then we will
understand the Constitution. . . . If we see the Constitution as standing
alone, and forget or deny that it presupposes the Declaration, we will
misunderstand the Constitution" (p. 75).

Whitehead cannot accept the words of the First Amendment as written by the
First Congress and approved by the states.  Therefore, says Whitehead, the
religion clauses should be revised as follows: "The federal government shall
make no law having anything to do with supporting a national denominational
church, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (p. 98).  Whitehead's
revision of the words of history makes him a history revisionist.

KC:
This was, of course, almost word-for-word Madison's proposal for the 1st
Amendment. There IS a higher law, and it is NOT the Supreme Court.

LTS:
2.  Cord, Robert L. Separation Of Church and State. 1982.  The only comment
necessary to describe this book is written by the distinguished
constitutional historian Leonard W. Levy.  Levy
describes Cord's book as "mostly fiction masquerading as scholarship" (The
Establishment Clause, p. 221).

KC: Levy is a liberal wacko. Cord's book has been cited several times by
Supreme Court Justices.

LTS:
3.  Eidsmoe, John.   Chritianity And The Constitution. 1987.   In May 1789
George Washington wrote: "No one would be more zealous than myself to
establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and
every species of religious persecution" (Writings, 30:321).  Eidsmoe asserts
that "this statement summarizes Washington's view of the First Amendment" (p.
124).  The First Amendment was not drafted until September 1789.

KC: Don't be ridiculous, LTS. Are you saying no one did any thinking at all
about religous freedom until 1789?

LTS:
4.  Hart, Benjamin. Faith And Freedom. 1988.  Hart declares the Declaration
of Independence as "America's founding document" (p.13).  As everyone--except
Hart and Whitehead--knows, the
Declaration was signed  by representatives from colonies which were declaring
themselves independent states.  The founding document of the United States of
America is its Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence or the
Mayflower Compact.

KC: The Declaration is our nation's Articles of Incorporation; the
Constitution is our By-Laws. Go to a law library. Look at West's edition of
the US Code. Open the first volume. Find this nation's "orgainic law."
Observe the "Declaration of Independence." Retract your argument.

continued: ===>



Subject: Re:RRR History
Revisionists
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:01 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb5ab-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
Hart quotes (without citation) Washington saying, "It is impossible to
rightly govern . . . without God and the Bible" (p. 13).  Washington never
said it.  

Barton:
Although the modern secularists avoid his numerous religious maxims,
Washington's views on religion are easily documented. He often spoke on
religious themes, to include the ruler of nations, the light of Revelation,
and the symbiotic relationship between the Church and the state. There is
overwhelming evidence to support this thought as belonging to Washington.
However, since the quote has not been documented to date, it appears unlikely
to be found. Too much research has been done on the life of
 Washington to see the prospect of a new quotation. 

There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835
biography by James K. Paulding. In a description of Washington's character,
with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said: 

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the
agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without
the aid of a Supreme Being."

The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily
generated the words in question. However, we have not been able to trace
Pauldings cite to a more scholarly reference. He offers no footnotes. For an
extensive selection of Washington's religious sayings, see the Maxims of
Washington: Political, Social, Moral, and Religious, John F. Schroeder, ed.
(Mount Vernon, Virginia: The Mount Vernon Ladies Association, © 1942).
(The book has also been reprinted, albeit in a slightly
 different format. We recommend the older versions.) 

continued ===>



Subject: Re:RRR History
Revisionists
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:05 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb705-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
Hart quotes James Madison (without
citation) saying, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization .
. . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves . . .
according to the Ten Commandments of God"       (p. 18).  Madison never said
it.

KC: 
It is inaccurate to say Barton quoted Madison "without citation." Barton has
cited numerous secondary sources. More could have been cited. But Barton has
stopped using this quote, not because Madison could not POSSIBLY have said
it, but because it cannot be located in any primary source.

Barton:
While these words have been the most controversial of all unconfirmed quotes,
they are consistent with Madison's thoughts on religion and government. They
are consistent because the key idea being communicated is self-government,
not religious laws or establishments. Our future rests upon the ability of
all to govern themselves according to a Biblical standard. Madison could have
easily offered the thought. 

Concerning a republican form of government, he spoke in the Federalist #39 of
"that honourable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to
rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government." (emphasis added) Here we see an interesting similarity to
the quote's wording, which may have led to a paraphrase that was erroneously
attributed to Madison. 

Speaking against direct religious taxation in his Memorial and Remonstrance,
Madison wrote: 

"While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to
observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny
an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which
has convinced us."

The religion of divine origin was obviously Christianity, of which Madison
said he was convinced. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Madison to
refer to the Ten Commandments as a foundation for self-government. Granted,
he fought to abolish religious establishments much of his life, but that is
not the issue. The issue is whether Madison could have made such a statement.
He could have; the questionable quote is not out of character. 

In the context of America's attitude toward religious establishments (which
was a State's right witheld from federal cognizance), Madison responded to an
essay/sermon by Reverend Jasper Adams with these words: 

"Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by
the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the
simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest
religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as
pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather
than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it."

Obviously, Madison is referring to tax-supported, religious establishments.
But it is well-understood that he was adamantly against establishments. The
point to notice is Madison's thoughts on Christianity. He called it the "best
and purest religion." As mentioned above, Christianity was the religion of
which he was convinced. Therefore, in the context of self-government, he
could have spoken the words in question. 

more ===>



Subject: Re:RRR History
Revisionists
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:06 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb741-at-3469db67@aol.com>

More on the Madison quote from Barton:

Furthermore, referring again to Bishop Meade's analysis of Virginian families
and churches, Meade stated: 

"Whatever may have been the private sentiments of Mr. Madison on the subject
of religion, he was never known to declare any hostility to it. He always
treated it with respect, attended public worship in his neighborhood, invited
ministers of religion to his house, had family prayers on such
occasions,-though he did not kneel himself at prayers. Episcopal ministers
often went there to see his aged and pious mother and administer the Holy
Communion to her. I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then
 our conversation took such a turn-though not designed on my part-as to call
forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind
that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible. At his death, some
years after this, his minister-the Rev. Mr. Jones-and some of his neighbors
openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing
during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the
Christian system to be divine."

Thus we see that while Madison may not have been, in today's terms, a
fundamentalist, he was known as a Christian and a faithful member of his
church. The quote in question would be entirely consistent with the man's
life and legacy. Nevertheless, we recommend that this quote be shelved. 

As a final thought on Madison, the quote may have come from Madison's cousin,
the Bishop James Madison, or from his father, James Madison, Sr. This is
similar to Patrick Henry's situation, and is one of the problems we encounter
in verifying quotations. 



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:10 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb79a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
If you fire upon law enforcement agents, you don't expect them to fire back?


KC:
The response of Koresh was no different than that of the Founding Fathers
toward the British. They did not come to peacefully serve a warrant. They had
been training and assembling an armed invasion for days beforehand.

Comparing the the child molesting, thieving, mind controlling, and murderous
Koresh to our Founding Fathers is an insult.  Do you know just how Koresh
gained control of his little band of brain washed victims?  He murdered the
prior leader in a dubious "shoot out".  He and his followers were armed to
the teeth, and Koresh was known to be violent when provoked.  As I said
before, any other approach would have been suicidal madness.

LTS: The day you have to face armed psychotic men, and make it home to your
family, then you'll understand.

KC: I deal with psychotic people on a daily basis.

That's not what I said.  I said an ARMED psychotic person.  Nice try at
evading the spirit of the question.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:RRR History
Revisionists
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:10 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb812-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
5.  Limbaugh, Rush. The Way Things Ought To Be. 1993 (paper).  Limbaugh
misquotes the establishment clause and declares: "Only a lawyer could claim
not to understand the plain meaning of those words.  The government is
prohibited from setting up a state religion,  . . . but no barriers will be
erected against the practice of any religion" (p. 281). If the meaning is
plain, why add  "a state"?  

KC:
Because the modern secular anti-Christian Supreme has so distorted its
meaning, and through the tactic known as "the big lie," so endlessly repeated
its mythology that it is now widely accepted.

LTS:
And, will someone tell the Mormons (Reynolds, 1879) and Native Americans
(Smith, 1990) Limbaugh has rescinded the Court's barriers against the
practice of their religion?

KC:
What are you arguing? that the founders wanted polygamy to be legal, but we
just haven't been following the FIrst Amendment?



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:16 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bb96d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Pray tell.  What is the theology behind maritime law?  Environmental
law?  Workers Compensation?

KC: Respect for property: "Thou shalt not steal."
Environment: Ex 22:6  If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the
stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he
that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

Workers Comp: Exodus 21:18-19  And if men strive together, and one smite
another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
{19} If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that
smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall
cause him to be thoroughly healed.<<<

Wow are you reaching!  The second does NOT describe workers comp.  It
describes compensating someone one has INTENTIONALLY harmed.  Hardly
compensation for a worker accidentally injured on the job.

As for the environment, well, read it for yourself people.  It talks about
compensating one who's crops were burned in a fire caused by negligence.
More of a biblical people's court than environmental protection.  What a
REACH!  

Pathetic.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 03:44 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bbe64-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
KC completely --- and conveniently --- overlooks the more than one hundred
thousand murders of innocent people branded as witches in Europe between the
1480s and 1780s by Christians.  Sounds to me like Christianity has just as
much blood on it's hands as any other religion.

KC:
Not even close. 100,000 in 300 years. In the 20th century, - not yet 100
years - secular governments have murdered nearly 200,000,000 (two thousand
times as many) of their own people. Add to this the number of "enemies"
killed in wars and foreign invasions. Then add abortions. Secular governments
have thus murdered almost as many in ONE DAY as Christians througout the
middle ages. 

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/Rummel.htm

And who were these "christians"? Imperial imposters. Political hypocrites.
The State created by RomanLaw masquerading as Christian.



Subject: Theocracy and Religion
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:01 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc1ff-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS: 
 religion teaches the exact opposite of freedom; conformity.

KC: 
EVERY religion?

Conformity to what?
The TenCommandments? You mean, if I can go through my life without stealing,
raping, killing, lying, coveting, or dishonoring the aged, I am a slave? This
is bad? "Freedom" means being a serial killer, rapist, burglar, unable to
work for six days, an embarrassment to one's parents?
"Freedom" means living in a nation dominated by "non-conformists" who rob me,
rape my wife, kidnap my children?

You need to listen to the Founding Fathers, men who were a lot wiser than
you, who realized that national greatness comes from conformity to God's Holy
Law.

"All the miseries and 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."
--Noah Webster



Subject: Re:Mistake on the law
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:10 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc423-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>>One court ruled that if a student prays over his lunch, it is
"unconstitutional" if he prays aloud (Reed v. VanHoven, 237 FSupp 48)<<<

LTsurviver      
Ah, I see that you cannot be trusted.  This has been overturned and you know
it.  This was NOT a supreme court decision, yet you present it to promote
fear.  This shows a contemptible lack of integrity.

KC:
Actually, I didn't *know* one way or the other its subsequent history. Yes, I
present it to promote fear: fear in a court dominated by an anti-Christian
mentality. The defendant in this case had their lives turned upside down by
this secular agenda. Defending a case like this costs thousands of dollars
and disrupts normal life. The Rutherford Institution cannot always be there
to bail innocent people out of prosecution by Secular Humanists.

>>>Another court ruled that a student was prohibited from reading his Bible
silently during free time, or even to open his Bible at school. (Gierke v.
Blotzer, CV-88-0-883, USDC Neb 1989)<<<

LTS:
This too has been overturned.  Neither Ed nor I stand for this kind of
discrimination and you know it.  Yet you throw out these moot decisions as if
they are laws of the land. 

KC:
Not that I don't believe you, but just so I can update my records, could you
pass along the citation fromthe courts that overruled these decisions?

These cases, and others I could cite, illustrate my point. That the judicial
system is dominated by secular mythology, and hostile to Christianity. To say
"students can pray anytime they want" is disingenuous when for 170 years
under the constitution local municipalities could teach their children that
praying was good, and the Bible should be believed, and now the states
freedom of religion is prohibted by the federal govt in violation of the
First Amendment. Yes, Christians now find themselves in the
 same position as atheists prior to the prayer cases. They don't get their
way. Which proves that pure religious freedom is impossible. Something the
Founders understood.
                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                  LTS




Subject: Theocracy and the Court
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:16 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc53e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC points out that the states had oaths requiring Christianity.

LTS:
Even if this were so, they were unconstitutional since the ratification of
the Constitution,and especially since the ratification of the fourteenth
amendment.  Just because a state or two gets away with violating the
constitution, does not make that violation constitutional.  It just means the
violation wasn't challenged in court. 

KC:
Which means the Constitution is whatever the COURT says it is. If all of the
FRAMERS of the Constitution said the states could have Christian Theocratic
oaths, and the Constitution only said the *Federal* govt could not require
membership in a certain denomination, and ALL of the states (not just "one or
two") had such oaths for decades, If the Supreme Court comes along and says
its all "unconstitutional," then there is no argument?  

How can it be that NOBODY (except maybe Jefferson) out of all those
legislators and Presidents and jurists, understood the Constitution until the
middle of the 20th century? 



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Deism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:20 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc691-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>>Jefferson said he was a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that is to say,
a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." He did not say he was a deist. <<<

LTS:
Again I have caught you in a blatant misrepresentation.  Jefferson was only
saying that he followed the morals of Christianity. (which in itself can be
said to be laughable, as Jefferson was clearly not a chaste man)

KC:
Then Jefferson is misrepresenting himself, not I. But the point is important:
the less religious of the FOunders still understood that whatevery they
believed and practiced in their private lives was not the same thing that
should be countenanced and encouraged by the State. The State should
encourage Christian morality. Even the so-called deists believed this, and
certainly the evangelical  Christians did, and that means NOBODY agreed with
the ACLU. If we're going to have a Civil Government at all, it
 should foster generic Christianity.



Subject: Re:Condoms
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:28 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc7be-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>>Let's face it. When the government will not allow students to read the
Bible in school, are not allowed to see the words "Thou shalt not commit
adultery," but engages in a "free condom giveaway program," we have the
ideals of the Founders turned on its head. This is insanity.<<<

LTS:
Name a time in history when teenagers did not have sex.  You can't. 

KC:
Name a time in history when people didn't murder. You can't. So lets
eliminate all laws against murder. Let the government pass out more accurate
handguns so that innocent bystanders won't be injured.

LTS:
By the way, I noticed you completely ignored the fact that making free
condoms available did not increase the sexual activity of the students.  In
one week, you have already attempted to revise history right before our eyes.

KC:
The amount of sexual activity may not vary much in the few months these
programs have been surveyed. But consider the data assembled by Barton: since
prayer and Bible were taken out of the schools in 1962-63, birthrates for
unwed mothers age 15-19 have skyrocketed over 300%. Rates of sexually
transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds (incredible) also jumped up 300%.
After destroying the foundations of morality, there's not much the secular
state could do to make it worse.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 04:34 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005bc8f4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
The response of Koresh was no different than that of the Founding Fathers
toward the British. They did not come to peacefully serve a warrant. They had
been training and assembling an armed invasion for days beforehand.

LTS:
Comparing the the child molesting, thieving, mind controlling, and murderous
Koresh to our Founding Fathers is an insult.  

KC:
The FBI gave Koresh a video camera to show what was going on re: the
children. The FBI refused to release the tape because Koresh looked too good.
Local authorities had already investigated the group for abuse, and found
none. Your charges are unsubstantiated.

LTS: The day you have to face armed psychotic men, and make it home to your
family, then you'll understand.

KC: I deal with psychotic people on a daily basis.

LTS:
That's not what I said.  I said an ARMED psychotic person.  Nice try at
evading the spirit of the question.

KC:
I'm sorry. I meant ARMED. See the web page I cited. Just because I know I'm
talking to an armed psychotic man does not mean I have a right to kill him.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 08:29 EST
From: JENNMTR
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c28cd-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>Children are taught to report on how their family functions.  (It is
NOT the business of the State)<<<

LTsurvivor<<So the schools should not look out for child abuse?  This is the
only reason schools are ever interested in the child's home life.>>>

No, that's not the only reason. There are teachers out there working on
Theses that very well may be intruding into the private life of families. I
remember my daughter coming home from school one day (high school) and
telling me about her *health* class (that's not what they called it, but it's
been a few years and can't remember the exact title.) One of the questions
she was supposed to answer on a survey, was whether or not she was a *wanted*
child!!!! I told her it was none of the teacher's business.
 These things do happen, much as I dislike to agree with ZKMeg.

JENNMTR




Subject: Jefferson, Deist
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 08:37 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c30a2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: Jefferson said he was a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that
is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." He did not say he was a
deist. <<

>>LTS: Again I have caught you in a blatant misrepresentation.  Jefferson was
only saying that he followed the morals of Christianity. (which in itself can
be said to be laughable, as Jefferson was clearly not a chaste man)<<

>>KC: Then Jefferson is misrepresenting himself, not I.  ... <<

CorumB> KC, please repost your quote, but provide sufficient context (4 to 6
sentences before and after should suffice), so we can determine if you are
misrepresenting Jefferson by quoting him out of contex. What is the original
source of the quote your post, and when did Jefferson write it?  In his
writings, Jefferson was quite clear in clarifying his unconventional use of
the term "Christian". Jefferson was a deist who admired Socrates and Jesus as
great moral teachers. Jefferson believed that Jesus
 never claimed to be God, and that such passages in the Bible were
corruptions. With this understanding, Jefferson wrote: 
    "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he
wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to
all others; ascribing to himself every *human* excellence; & believing he
never claimed any other."  -- Thomas Jefferson, emphasis in the original, to
Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

Jefferson edited a book in which he took Jesus' teachings from Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, and pasted them into a blank book, excluding what he viewed as
corruptions (such as the claims for Jesus' divinity, and miracles, since they
violated natural law).  He wrote in a letter to Charles Thomson, January 9,
1816: 
   "I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials which I call
the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting
the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book,
in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of
ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a *real
Christian*, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very
different from the Platonists, who call *me* infidel and
 *themselves* Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all
their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."  --
Thomas Jefferson, emphasis in the original.

Source: _Thomas Jefferson: Writings (Autobiography; A Summary View of the
Rights of British America; Notes on the State of Virginia; Public Papers;
Addresses, Messages and Replies; Miscellany; Letters)_, edited by Merrill D.
Peterson, 1984, The Library of America, NYNY, 1600 pp. 



Subject: Franklin, Deist
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 08:42 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c35ef-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ben Franklin's religious views, in his own words:

   "Reverend and Dear Sir,
   ...  You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I
have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiousity amiss, and
shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in
one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That
he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him
is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and
will be treated with Justice in another Life
 respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental
Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever
Sect I meet with them.
   As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I
think the System of Morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best
the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received
various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters
in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not
dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself
with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing
 the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed,
if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his
Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not
perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers
in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure.
   I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the Goodness
of that Being in conducting me prosperously thro' a long life, I have no
doubt of its Continuance in the next, though without the smallest Conceit of
meriting such Goodness.  ...
   P.S. ...  I confide, that you will not expose me to Criticism and censure
by publishing any part of this Communication to you. I have ever let others
enjoy their religious Sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that
appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All Sects here, and we have a
great Variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with
Subscriptions for building their new Places of Worship; and, as I have never
opposed any of their Doctrines, I hope to go out of the
 World in Peace with them all.  ..."  
    --Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale
College, October 19, 1789, reprinted in _Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography
and Other Writings_, Signet, New American Library, NYNY, pp. 336-338.
Ellipses in the reprint.



Subject: Re:Ratification
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:25 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c71b6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC writes:  << because this is a Christian nation. Mormons cannot
practice polygamy for this reason, says the Court.>>

hmmmm.. I thought that Mormonism WAS a Christian religion?  Further, examples
of polygamy abound in the Bible, without divine condemnation btw.

Theocratists rarely speak to WHICH version of Christianity should hold sway..
blindly bumbling toward Belfast...

Jim..



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:32 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c7808-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ard, quoting Cynthia Tucker>><<But I wonder whether the parents who
applauded the rally have stopped to think how they would have felt if it had
been conducted by a minister whose religious views they find offensive or
peculiar. What if the rally had been conducted by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon?
What if it had been the Hare Krishnas? Or the Scientologists? . . .
 >>

Cynthia made excellent points here.  I used to enjoy her columns when I lived
in Montgomery.

Beyond her point though, many Christians would be upset even if the rally
were Christian, but not "their kind" of Christianity.    When we were in
Montgomery, we had some friends who were from "up North", and from Catholic
families (they themselves were UU).  There was an issue of school prayer
(common in AL, unfortunately), and her parents were saying to them "What's
the big deal with prayer in school?"  She said "It would not be a Catholic
prayer."  they said "What, that is ridiculous!!"  Funny, then
 they (the parents) were just as much against prayer in the schools as my
friends were.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:32 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c78f3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Meg>>Judeo/Christian belongs everywhere.>>

Not in my home, and not in any tax supported situation.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:35 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c7ae9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Meg>>Leave <<teaching to the schools>>             Are you aware of
what kind of teaching goes on in the schools?  How children are being taught
to dishonor their parents?  That what the group decides on an answer to a
math question is correct?  

Meg, how long has it been since you set foot in a school for any reason?  I
have a child in second grade, in a public school, and what you say above is
not even remotely true.  Your talk radio is leading you astray, and making
you post things here that make you look stupid.  Why not go spend a few days
volunteering in a school and see what REALLY happens there?

>>There is a lot of new age mischief.  There is radical control of children.
Have you noted today's young work force?

What is radical control of children?  And would you lay off the younger
generation--I'll bet you know as little about them as you do about what
happens in schools.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:36 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c7b9f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Meg>>No, Wolfsong, YOU should have added "in my opinion".   You are on
a slippery slope, gal.>>

Slippery slope?  The first amendment requires separation of church and state.
My statement was factual, your's wishful thinking.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:44 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c8489-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>From:  KEVIN4VFT    >

Where are you going with all this copying of old posts?  Is there a point?
Do you have a comment to make?



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:51 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c89d6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>.Wolfsong told me that modern pagans do not practice cannibalism,
but I think she may have overlooked China.

They EAT people in modern day China?  Get real!!  Do you even know what
cannibalism IS?

>>The U.S. murdered a quarter of a million people in the Mid East. That
qualifies as pagan in my book.

Kevin, Pagan means an Earth centered spirituality.  How in the heck does
murder in the Mid East equate to Earth centered religion?  Your book needs a
little reality injected.



Subject: Re:School prayer
misapprehen
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:57 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c9019-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>. But it is not the case that Barton is simply making them up. In
all probability, they are accurate, spoken in a speech or something not
recorded.>>

If it was not recorded, then how did the "secondary sources" get it?  This
logic is NOT logic at all.



Subject: Re:Mistake on the law
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 09:59 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c93bb-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS>>Ah, I see that you cannot be trusted.  This has been overturned
and you know it.  This was NOT a supreme court decision, yet you present it
to promote fear.  This shows a contemptible lack of integrity.
>>

Oh, come now--what's wrong with a little lying for God?



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Deism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:01 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c9598-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>Jefferson said he was a Christian. "I am a real Christian, that
is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." He did not say he was a
deist. 
>.

Ha!  and in that same letter he said the Christianity was the biggest
perversion of Christ's teachings.  Try again, I've read that one--not just
the part you chose to quote.



Subject: Re:Inherant Difficulties
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:02 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c9708-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>> But, first, provide some proof that condoms are being passed
out?  Where, and under what circumstances?

KC:
"School-based clinics">>

Name a school, and the circumstances under which they give a student condoms.



Subject: Re:Inherant Difficulties
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:04 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c98e7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS>>A recent study confirmed that students in school districts that
make condoms available have sex at a rate no higher than students in school
districts that do not.  So there goes that argument.
>>

There you go, assuming the truth will in any way change one of Kevin's
arguments!



Subject: Re:Theocracy and
Cannibalism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:06 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c9a15-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>But here's the legal question. Suppose a modern cannibal wants
to devour you, Wolfsong. Would I be "intolerant" if I passed a law against
your death, based on the Commandment "thou shalt not kill?" According to the
modern secular Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional to do so>>

This assumes that cannibalism is a "religious" thing.  And that anyone in
American, or anywhere else today, would want to do it.

Just ask Alferd Packer what happens to cannibals in this country.  It has
nothing to do with religion.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Freedom
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:12 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005c9f95-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>Wolfsong:
Kevin>>The question asked by the Founding Fathers is, Which religion brings
freedom and national prosperity? Their answer was unanimous: Christianity.>>

Show definitively where they said that.  

KC:
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE: "Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious
aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; 

DE Tocqueville was not an American founding father.  What he found of the
population half a century later is not indicative of the founding father's
thinking that Christianity was the "bringer of freedom".

Kevin>>Ben Franklin:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and
vicious, they have more need of masters.

Hmmm, nothing about Christianity there.  Next.

Kevin>>Want zillions more quotes? See Barton, Original Intent, ch 17, and pp.
165-172 or thereabouts.>>

Why, no.  Barton has been thouroughly discredited, why would I want to look
there?  Besides, if what you provided is representative, it will shed no
light on the question of whether founding father's would have said, as you
claim, "Which religion brings freedom and national prosperity? Their answer
was unanimous: Christianity."





Subject: Re:Kevin and Barton
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:14 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ca1b5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: You deliberately cut my post off. I went on to say that none of
these quotations were "lies," they were taken from secondardy sources, and
Barton wants to prove his undeniable thesis using only primary source
materials.
>>

So, he copied someone else's lies, without checking to see if they could be
validated?



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Indians
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:36 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ca3c0-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>How about, until his recent death, CEO of Coca-Cola.>>

He was an Aztec??!!???!

KC:
I don't know about that, but he was Latino, a member of one of those South
American peoples "oppressed" by Christopher ("Christ-bearer") Columbus and
the Christian West. That was the point of the thread.>>

Why, you ARE funny.  First off the thread was Aztecs, not "Latinos".
Secondly, the Latinos are the product of Columbus's destruction of the
existing peoples, and the interbreeding.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:36 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ca430-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC:
The Bible sets down rules concerning swearing an oath. Those rules were
followed by those who drafted the Delaware Constitution. I want to follow
those rules. The State of California will not let me.>>

So, move to Delaware then.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Cold War
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:20 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ca7ad-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>"Speaking of fiction, imagine, if you will, a post-Nazi Germany 
headed by 'democratic reformers' such as Hermann Goering 
and Heinrich Himmler. Imagine these 'former' Nazis, who had 
committed monstrous crimes against humanity, being entrusted 
with the affairs of state in the new 'democratic' Germany. >>

Did anyone say that the nations formed in the dissolution of the Soviet Union
were wonderful, or that their leaders were, or that they were models of
capitalism and humanitarianism?  NO.  But, the Cold War is over--we are no
longer under threat of nuclear destructin by the Soviet Union.  That is all
that the "end of the Cold War" implies--the end of the mutually assured
destruction stand-off.  It was a "Cold" war, remember?  We didn't beat them,
they quit.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:22 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ca985-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>Page 69 & 70 comments on The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts
(1648) and those "blood-thirsty" early American Theonomists(!)

"Neither in theory nor in practice was colonial law very bloodthirsty. 
There were fewer capital crimes on the books than in England....>>

You are SOOOOO cute.  Now, give us a population comparison between the
colonies and England.  WHAT!  There were many times fewer people??

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:24 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cab6e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>This is the theory behind the Reconstructionists urging of
Capital Punishment.
According to Rushdoony, 

To the humanistic mind these penalties seem severe and unnecessary. In
actuality, the penalties, **together with the Biblical faith which motivated
them,** worked to reduce crime. >>

Gosh, yes, this humanistic mind finds it VERY severe to execute people for
adultery, and practicing another religion (Witches and Quakers).  No amount
of explaining away will change my mind about that.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:25 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005caccc-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I don't know whether to laugh or shudder.

Kevin said:  >>Next you'll be happy when U.N. Soldiers are on every street
corner. See:

http://www.jbs.org/vo13no20.htm#Beasts in Blue Berets<<

If you go to this site you'll see two photos that purport to show
"atrocities" by UN soldiers.  In one, two fellows in camouflage are bodily
carrying a person of indeterminate age.  In the foreground, some distance
away is a fire built on a tire or another container.  The publication, "The
New American," alleges the photo shows UN troops torturing a child, holding
the kid over a fire.

The troops are not identified by any insignia.  It is unclear they are UN
troops.  It IS clear that they are not holding the person over the flames.
It is not clear what the situation is.  It looks like a couple of cops
arresting a protester in Berkeley, California.  But let's not let the lack of
facts get in the way.

The second photos shows what The New American claims to be a UN soldier
forcing a child to drink a solution of "saltwater, vomit and worms."  Again,
the person holding the vessel is unidentified -- in fact you can see only a
small part of a torso and two arms.  Apparently anytime a soldier appears who
is otherwise unidentified, The New American assumes the fellow is a UN
soldier, despite the lack of the clear UN insignia required, or the blue
helmets one might expect to see.

The person drinking might be a child, or it might be an old woman.  It is
impossible to determine from the photo.

The person drinking is not resisting in any way, shape or form.  Do you
remember the movie, Gunga Din, when Din is providing drinks to the troops?
Do you remember the movie Ben Hur, when Judah Ben Hur gives water to a fellow
about to be crucified?  The person drinking the solution offers about as much
resistance as the drinkers do in either of those movies.  That doesn't square
with the assertion that the fluid being drunk is the repulsive mixture
alleged.

And, saline solutions -- salt water by another name -- are key weapons in the
war against famine and disease in the third world.  UNICEF ships millions of
gallons of fortified saline solutions to save babies' lives, and to for other
therapeutic purposes.

Kevin, these photos are a crock.  They don't show what they purport to show,
just looking at the photos.  Indeed there is deception here, but the
deception of the photos is not being perpetrated by the UN, or any allied
agency.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:27 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005caee4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Koresh was not psychotic. The Davidians had fewer arms
per capita than the Texas average. Why don't you advocate nuking the whole
state? Your support of statist violence is staggering.<<

Texans have more than five firearms per person?  Surely this figure is in
error.  The last survey I recall on the topic found about a gun per citizen.


And, by the way, when Koresh's group converted their rifles into
automatic-firing weapons, the guns and the Davidians ceased being legal.

Ed



Subject: Re:Jefferson, Deist
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:38 EST
From: Wolfsong
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cb2cf-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Corum>> "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only
sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, >>

That's it!!  Sorry, not "perversions" but "corruptions">



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:33 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cb4fb-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>Portnoy:
By the way, KC, I read the web page you posted.  It is interesting, but not
historically sound.  The only "unbiased" quote used was the Delaware
Constitution, and that, as many of us have mentioned, has long since been
declared unconstitutional.

KC: "Long since"? Far fewer years have elapsed since state test oaths were
ruled unconstitutional by a secular Sup Ct (1961) than since the Constitution
was ratified. Why is it that so many generations elapsed before the Sup Ct
"discovered" that prayer and Bible reading in public schools and
state-required test oaths were "unconstitutional?"<<

I'm real curious why Kevin insists on using the 1776 version of the Delaware
stuff.  By December of 1776 the Continental Congress urged the 13
now-independent nations to restructure their laws -- which was why Jefferson
headed home to Virginia.  In the ensuing year or so most of the colonies
dramatically restructured, disestablishing religion in all 13 former colonies
(though four clung to some support of generic religion).

When did Delaware change the  law, Kevin?  Is there any evidence that
Delaware practiced such religious discrimination as the oath would seem to
imply?  

Delaware was, with Pennsylvania, a state that tolerated a broad range of
religious belief -- in practice.  The laws may have been somewhat behind the
practice, but that does not change the continuing trend to full religious
freedom for people of all beliefs that accelerated during the American
Revolution.

Comments?

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:36 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cb8aa-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed>> And, saline solutions -- salt water by another name -- are key
weapons in the war against famine and disease in the third world.  UNICEF
ships millions of gallons of fortified saline solutions to save babies'
lives, and to for other therapeutic purposes.<<

CorumB> Ed, I see that you're now a part of the conspiracy. ;c)  To learn
about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, see the following website:

http://church.freethought.org/9810.ban-dhmo.html

The addition of sodium chloride probably makes it even more lethal!   =cD



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 10:44 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cc000-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: What *does* this country stand for? Certainly not the high ideals
that motivated the Framers of the Constitution, who, after drafting that
instrument, went back to their states and drafted oaths like that of
Delaware.<<

This is inaccurate.  

In Virginia, for example, George Mason wrote  a bill of rights that included
religious freedom.  All the former colonies disestablished their churches.
Oaths requiring religious fealty were on the way out, often disregarded as
they were in Virginia, where even Catholics were elected to high office
despite official bans on the practice.

To the extent these oaths require allegiance to God, they are relics -- dead
in spirit by 1787, if not dead by law earlier.  Attempts were made to
revivify oaths in the Cold War (bonus question:  Why?), and that is why the
Supreme Court got the issue in 1961.  There is very little evidence that the
oaths were more than dead letters from 1776 to 1961.  Rarely were they used
to bar anyone from office (apart from Jefferson, can you imagine a deist or
atheist WINNING an election?), though I am aware of one
 Quaker elected popularly who then refused to take the oath (most of the
colonies, after the war, looked the other way when Quakers assumed posts.
The issue was good government, not religious inquisition.).

If you consult professional historians, and good histories, you will find a
strong trend to religious freedom in all of America.  Greater toleration
allowed greater cooperation in fighting the British, and later in commerce
and trade.  Though you can find momentary lapses, by and large the rules that
allowed the death penalty for heresy were not honored, nor did anyone expect
such harshness.  When they gave thought to it, the Americans almost always
vitiated such laws.  Common law jurisdiction that
 granted great power to local clergy were swept away in some states by
codifying blasphemy and heresy -- though Kevin's sources claim these moves to
religious freedom were just the opposite -- and common law crimes (heresy and
blasphemy) were grossly unprosecuted in other states.

In short, America did not start its own inquisition, and any pedestrian
history will support that notion.  To claim that the founders harkened back
to Torquemada is interesting, but fantasy.

Ed



Subject: Maritime theocracy?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:01 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cd12a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I asked, earlier:  >>Pray tell.  What is the theology behind maritime
law?  Environmental law?  Workers Compensation?<<

KC: Respect for property: "Thou shalt not steal."
Environment: Ex 22:6  If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the
stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he
that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

Workers Comp: Exodus 21:18-19  And if men strive together, and one smite
another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
{19} If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that
smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall
cause him to be thoroughly healed.<<

On this basis, "thou shalt not steal" would be the basis of almost every law,
no?

Kevin, consult the incredibly lengthy literature on maritime law, and tell us
honestly if you think that the grey water discharge rules have anything at
all to do with stealing.  And try to make your answer square with the rest of
your philosopy -- that is, if you sound like Bill Clinton on water pollution,
we'll know you're dissembling.  What about the work rules?  Can you really
square any of the maritime work rules with anything anywhere in the Bible?
(If so, you ought to do a paper on it).   There
 is almost zero correlation.

You missed the environmental clauses of the Bible.  I suppose under a
"christian government" you would be flogging the CEOs of mining companies, or
perhaps drawing-and-quartering them, under the scripture you cite.  

But then, the founders didn't rely on your scripture either, on the
environmental issue.

Your misunderstanding of workers compensation shows the difficulty -- you
cite a scripture in which one worker commits a tort on another.  But what if
the tort is committed by the owner of the vineyard?  What if it is
unintentional?

More to the point -- what does the Bible say about a simple accident where no
one is adjudged to be at fault?  The worker is left adrift under a Biblical
system.  Worse, under the verse you cite, there is solid economic advantage
in killing the fellow you injure, instead of letting him live to be a burden
on you.

If you can provide any citation from any workers compensation law in the U.S.
which suggests it is based in any way on Biblical law or scripture, I shall
be amazed.

Ed



Subject: Re:Mistake on the law
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:06 EST
From: Peoplepowr
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cd565-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS, EdDarr, BofR, ArdEine, JSojourner, CorumB, etc. as someone who
LOVES this country and what it stands for, I want to thank all of you for
pointing out the lies posted here and for correcting them with the truth.
Yes, your opponents make false statements designed to frighten Christians
into thinking that our democratic system of government is a threat to the
Christian religion.  The means and the ends of those who make such statements
are, I believe, diabolical.

For evil to succeed, all it takes is for good to stand by and do nothing.
All who fight the lies posted here are patriots.   Please know that your good
work and time and effort do not go unappreciated.  

      



Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:08 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cd7ac-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: Reading is down. Maybe that explains why no one understands the
Original Intent of the Constitution. Dallas schools (and nearly all others)
were not illegal for 170 years. <<

You've provided nothing to suggest that schools were the bastions of
religious instruction that you say they were.  I suggest that the reason the
schools were legal from 1820 (when public schooling began in any significant
numbers) to 1997 is that they avoided entanglements with religous
instruction.  They didn't do it.  Oh, a few here and there had prayers -- but
most didn't, and there is little evidence that there was any national
sentiment for such stuff until after World War II, in the anticommunist
 fervor that added "In God We Trust" to all our money, and put "under God"
into a newly-official pledge of allegiance.  Have you noticed that reading
scores have trended downward ever since?

That's a post-hoc error, Kevin, but slightly less egregious than the one you
asserted.

In point of fact some states banned Bibles in schools under their own laws.
The Illinois Supreme Court got a case in 1911, and determined that the state
constitution prohibited coerced school prayers.

The Department of Education has the most extensive collection of American
schoolbooks in the world.  Included are copies of the New England Primer, Ben
Franklin's version, Webster's blue book, McGuffey, and text books from the
entirety of European occupation of the continent.  If you peruse those
volumes, as I was obliged to do, you will find precious little religious
intent.

Instead, the schools in America have always been focused on academic subjects
-- three Rs, not four.

The schools were legal because they were not religiously oriented.  We should
not undercut the First Amendment now.

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:26 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ceb7b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed, a week ago: >>Certainly it was true in 1800 that the federal
government and most state governments did not require Bibles in public
schools.  <<

KC:>> Name one school that did not teach the Bible in 1800. Name one Founder
besides Jefferson who might have wanted to keep children from learning the
Bible. The point is that the overwhelming majority of Founders favored Bible
in public schools and assemblies.<<

My point, Kevin, is that there were not public schools in 1800.  

The eminent historian Daniel Boorstin in his award-winning trilogy on "The
Americans" notes that only Boston Latin stands out as a public school for the
first two centuries of colonial life in America.  Public schools as we know
them were virtually non-existent in 1800.  Name one that didn't use the
Bible?  Tell you what -- how about first you name some public schools?  They
simply did not exist in any numbers until after 1820.

If you find the one public school, that one is the first one I name that did
not include the Bible as part of its curriculum for religious instruction
(I'm sure the Bible was still used as a reader -- a lousy reader -- well into
the 19th century).

Similarly, the federal government had no role in education, other than the
disposal of public lands.  In those cases it is clear that the government did
not urge the Bible as curriculum, especially for religious reasons.  

Your claim that "the overwhelming majority of founders" wanted the Bible used
as curriculum is incredible fatuousness.  It's tantamount to saying the
overwhelming majority of founders preferred Imus in the Morning to Howard
Stern.  And it has just as large a factual basis. 

There were no public schools in significant numbers.  The founders had no
opinions, they were trying to get the government up and running.  Where they
DID have opinions, they were strongly opposed to mindless instruction in
religion, and took every opportunity to go for hard academic subjects
instead.

In fact, the education for religious readers of the day included more secular
stuff than you now advocate.  James Madison's college education under John
Witherspoon would have prepared him to be a preacher -- but that is because
it well grounded him in real literature, tough issues, philosophy, and other
hard academics.  It would be impossible to be fluent in Greek and Latin at
the age of 16, as was Thomas Jefferson, and take the seminary courses you
seem to urge.

By the way, there is not a whit of evidence that Jefferson or Madison ever
attended a school that had school prayer.  Is that your point?  Do you want
school prayer in order to prevent leaders like them?

You claim the Bible was a key part of the curriculum in public schools in
1800, and government leaders favored this.

I've pointed out that there were no such schools in 1800; I've pointed out
that the official pronouncements of the government don't support your
proposition.  The remaining issue is one that I've not seen you (or anyone
else) document -- that the Bible was key part of the curriculum.  Any
historian of education should be able to verify your charge, but I note that
you don't cite any of them.

Apart from David Barton, have you got any sources that say the Bible was as
important as you say it was?  Do they say school prayer was widespread?  

Do you have any CREDIBLE sources that say so?

Ed



Subject: 1844 case
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:27 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ced2f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>In 1844 a Frenchman left a will bequeathing a
substantial sum to a city to build a school which would NOT teach the Bible.
Before the US Supreme Court, Daniel Webster argued against the will from
Jesus' command, "Let the children come to me and do not try to stop them."
The US Supreme Court ruled that the will could not be enforced because this
is a Christian nation and morality is best taught from the New Testament.
This case reflected the view of the vast majority of the Founders, and of
 the American people. The modern post-Everson Court has not followed the
Constitution, but has simply imposed its own Secular Humanist agenda on the
country.<<

Why does this not have the holy ring of truth to it?

Tell me, Kevin, does the Supreme Court of the U.S. often get involved in will
cases?  

Please give us the case.  This one I gotta read for myself.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005cfd06-at-3469db67@aol.com>

RodDMartin said: >>The humanist worldview has been held even by the
Supreme Court to be a religion, thus affirming what we already knew.<<

I said:  >>Quickly checking, I can find no such holding.  Have you a
citation?  Are you sure it is the holding, and not obiter dicta?<<

KC responded: >>Torcaso v. Watkins, note 11. It is dicta, but undisputed. I
believe it was Leo Pfeffer who argued the case, and won, but later expressed
his disappointment that the Court publically admitted Humanism was a
religion.<<

Undisputed, but who would dispute obiter dicta, and dicta in a footnote, no
less?  The reality is that, while the footnote says that "among religions"
which do not teach belief in a Supreme Being is, inter alia, "secular
humanism,' the fact remains that secular humanism does not meet most other
tests one might use for determining whether it is a religion.  Is it
organized?  Not really.  Does it have an orthodox line of thought?  No.  Does
it have clergy?  No.  Are there scriptures?  No.  Can you name
 someone who is a secular humanist?  Yes, we can designate the signers of
either of the Humanist manifestoes (sp?).  But we note that some of them
profess Christianity, some profess other religions named in the footnote,
some profess Judaism, some profess to be atheist, some don't profess.  It
would be rare to find any group of them together in any meeting that would
qualify as worship, or any other religious exercise.  Can one be a member of
the "secular humanist" religion AND be Catholic?  Yes.
  Mormon?  Yes.  Baptist?  Yes.  Jew?  Yes.

Then why would we call it a religion?

And finally, Torcaso v. Watkins is the case that says that religious oaths,
such as the one Kevin prefers, are illegal, and run against the grain of the
American Revolution.  They run counter to the spirit of religious freedom,
etc., etc.

Do you expect us to let you get away with using admitted obiter dicta that is
clearly erroneous in a footnote to a decision which you say is an
abomination?

Make up your mind, Kevin, which way do you want Torcaso to stand?

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:44 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d000e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: I don't think the government should run schools. But for 150
years under the Constitution, local government did in fact run schools, and
they did teach sacraments and creeds. But when these details were taught they
were but a small part of the curriculum. The greatest lesson that schools can
teach children is that God is our Lord and Judge, and we must develop the
Character of Christ in our lives. All of the sudden, and quite recently,
historically speaking, that lesson cannot be taught, according
 to the Supreme Court.<<

Yeah, kids have studied what other people believe, and the history of the
creeds, for years.  

But you allege that schools taught "that God is our Lord and Judge, and we
must develop the Character of Christ in our lives."  

I doubt it.  I'd like you to make a case, based on credible history, that
public schools taught religion as you said.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 11:57 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d1172-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC:  The idea that Jefferson and Madison had that much to do with the
First Amendment is a myth foisted upon us by the Supreme Court. <<

This is a contemptible lie.  Jefferson and Madison are rightly regarded by
all credible historians as the chief authors of relgious liberty and freedom
of speech and thought in America.  CorumB's posts above soundly refute this
lie.

>>He considered religious study an inseparable component in the study of law
and political science, and inhis plan of education in Virginia, he considered
ethics and religion "as supplements to law in the government of man," and
placed them in that sequence in his catalog. (Writings, Bergh ed., XVI:19) <<

Supplements, not the meat.  When he was on the board of the College of
William and Mary, Jefferson took an activist role, dismissed a couple of the
religion instructors and added instruction in law and history.  At the
University of Virginia, religion was not a topic.  

Also, Jefferson regarded studying the Bible to be important so that young
people would become sceptics of Christianity -- as he wrote his nephews,
nieces and children, he regarded all stories of miracles as crockery, similar
to the tales of Livy and Tacitus about "showers of blood" and talking statues
in ancient Rome.

Would you allow us to use Jefferson's debunking of Christianity in your
curriculum?

>>Jefferson wasn't inthe country when the Constitution was drafted. <<

Jefferson spent the years of the Revolutionary War in Virginia, serving as
legislator and governor.  He, George Mason and Madison, and others, were
appointed to the committee to rewrite all the laws that needed rewriting for
an independent nation.  Jefferson details this blueprint for government in
"Notes on Virginia."  Additionally, Jefferson authored the bulk of what was
put forward at the Constitutional Convention as the "Virginia Plan."  His pen
was there, even if Jefferson was overseas.  Jefferson's
 work of authoring was done -- what remained was for a legislative genius
like Madison to get everyone else to agree.  See also the intense
correspondence between Madison and Jefferson during the convention -- as
posted by CorumB above on this board.

>>Jefferson was rarely quoted by courts before 1947 for this reason. His
ideas were definitely not mainstream.<<

Washington is quoted not at all by the courts.  Who cares?  What sort of a
crackpot standard is this?

>>A more objective determination of influence, such as that found on the
Separation of Ch&St Home page
(http://www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/index.htm) ranks Jefferson as
19th among the Founders in importance.<<

What kind of folly is it to "rank" the founders?  This sounds like an
exercise in revisionism to justify the denigration of the great men, as
indeed we see.  Jefferson gave electricity to the ideas of freedom; he
encouraged freedom in the entire world.  His careful attention to how
governments might be made good in spite of men have proven the greatest
political thought so far in history.  And you rank him 19th?  What, his RBI
average is low?

What folly.

[MORE, NEXT POST]




Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:13 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d2443-at-3469db67@aol.com>

[Continued from previous post]

Kevin attempts to denigrate the work of Jefferson and Madison on the
Constitution:  >>Madison, though important, wrote to William Cogswell: "You
give me credit to which I have no claim in calling me 'the writer of the
Constitution of the United States.' This was not, like the fabled Goddess of
Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work
of many heads and many hands." (Letters, Worthington, 1884, IV:341f.) <<

Modesty in a great man is a virtue, particularly when he gives credit to
others deserving, as Madison does here.  It was not because he was a
bellicose guy that Madison was endeared to most who knew him; perhaps calling
him "the writer" of the Constitution is not wholly accurate.  But it IS
accurate to call him "the Father of the Constitution" -- he provided the
legislative acumen and muscle to test Jefferson's ideas in Virginia, proving
them workable; he got the states around the Chesapeake  to get
 together on the difficult issue of maritime rights, and from that,
conspiring with Hamilton, got a call for a general convention to continue the
good work -- the general convention that turned into the Constitutional
Convention.  He was indefatigable in directing the action on the floor of the
convention, bringing together groups that had pledged never to compromise,
and getting them to compromise.

Do you think it builds your case to belittle Madison?

>>40 of Madison's 71 proposals during the Convention failed. The Constitution
Madison initially sought was far removed fromthe final document. (McDonald,
Novus Ordo Seclorum, 205-10) <<

So 31 succeeded, a success rate that would be the envy of any legislator.
More, the main proposal, though not "Madison's" by these terms, was
successful.  McDonald should have his typewriter washed out with soap.
Profaning the Constitution so!

>>One early work called Charles Pinckney the Father of the Constitution. What
about James Wilson, and Roger Sherman?<<

What about them?  Make the case, if you think it worthy.  Legislative work is
difficult, and Madison had a gift for it.  All accounts give him credit,
fairly.  Madison, a good man, shares his credit with others.  What's your
beef?

>>The SupCt's use of Madison and Jefferson to the exclusion of the dominant
ideas of the day suggests the truth of North's Thesis in *Political
Polytheism*: The convention was a coup d'etat of enlightenment masons.
Certainly the post-Everson SupCt has been a coup.<<

File it next to Al Franken's book on Rush Limbaugh.

>>Madison opposed the bill of rights, and when he prevailed at the
Convention, men like George Mason refused to sign. But Mason and others
prevailed over Madison.<<

The correspondence between Madison and Jefferson reveals again that Madison
was not opposed to the rights included.  Rather, he thought that the national
charter should not be encumbered with unnecessary stuff, and as he wrote
Jefferson, the protections for liberty already contained in the state
constitutions.  He was wrong, as he discovered during the ratification
fights, and as Jefferson lectured him from Paris.  Madison confessed to
Jefferson that he had seen the wisdom of a bill of rights before
 ratification was complete.  It is partly in deference to Madison that he was
the chief sponsor of the twelve proposals when the First Congress convened.
It is accurate to say that Madison did not orignally think it necessary to
enumerate rights in the federal charter.  It is a lie to imply Madison
opposed the rights he spent his entire life fighting for.

[More, next post]



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d329b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said: >>Madison's version of the first amendment specifically
mentioned a "national religion," i.e., Christian denomination. It was men
like Fisher Ames who had more to do withthe 1st Amend than Madison. <<

What is your source on Fisher Ames?  I've seen him cited a couple of times.
The records are clear.  Ames was an able orator, and he was present at the
time.  But Ames was a young man, too young to have been involved in the
history of the First Amendment, and to try to ignore the history and give
credit unduly to Ames is not something even Ames would have stood for.

But you miss the meat of Madison's original language.  If indeed he had the
phrase "national religion" in it, you miss these other, more significant
clauses.  Ralph Ketcham, who wrote the enormous biography of Madison
published in 1974 and 1990, said:  "In fact, religious liberty stands out as
the one subject on which Madison took an extreme, absolute, undeviating
position throughout his life.  The phrases he proposed for the first
amendment to the federal Constitution -- 'the full and equal rights of
 conscience [shall not] be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed,' and
'no State shall violate the equal rights of conscience' -- were less
equivocal than the language finally adopted.  He opposed inquiring about a
man's profession in the national census because for clergymen to respond to
such questions might infringe upon the absolute privacy of religious
opinions."

Madison learned well from his experience with religious liberty in Virginia.
When the Rev. Patrick Henry proposed to reinstate paying ministers from state
monies in 1785, Madison first proposed the bill lay over to the next session
as a very important measure.  Then he wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance,
which has defined the defense of religious liberty in America ever since.
Mason had the thing printed and distributed widely.  When the legislature
came back in 1786, not only did they vote down
 Henry's proposal, they finally enacted Jefferson's proposal on religious
freedom, on Madison's motion and floor direction.  By 1791, Madison had
boiled down the lengthy statute to essential language, and it shows in the
First Amendment.

But you say others played larger roles in the First Amendment?  Have you no
respect for the Ninth Commandment?

You can look it up in nearly any history book.  Jefferson and Madison were
giants in the establishment of freedom of thought and religion in the U.S.,
and the world.  To say otherwise is a contemptible lie.

Ed



Subject: Re:Jeff'son, Madison:
Religi
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:33 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d3c00-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Madison and most other presidents offered Presidential
proclamations for national days of prayer. Jefferson did not, but said it was
a state responsibility, not a federal one. Secularists say Jefferson's
apparent anti-religious views are the only Constitutional ones among all the
Founders. This is untenable. How could it be that all these men could draft a
document, and all these state conventions could ratify it, and all of them
misunderstood it to mean government approval of Christianity
 was OK? Why is it nobody understood it correctly until the 20th century? <<

Again you get the facts essentially wrong.  I quote again from Ralph
Ketcham's biography, *Madison*:  "In 1798, 1799, and 1800 he made the threat
to religious liberty an important part of his protest against the Sedition
Act.  To strengthen the wall of seperation between church and state, he
opposed having the government pay for chaplains for Congress or for the armed
forces.  He opposed presidential proclamations of religious holidays, and as
President he vetoed a Congressional grant of land to a
 Baptist church in Mississippi because it comprised 'a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and
support of religious societies.'

I have heard rumors and never been able to confirm that Madison actually
signed a proclamation that asked for prayers from those who prayed during the
dark days of the War of 1812 -- the one piece I read said it was his only
waivering on principle in his life, and that he immediately regretted it and
wrote to Jefferson to apologize for so offending the principles of liberty.
But again, I've never been able to confirm such a proclamation.


Are Jefferson's views the ONLY ones among founders?  No, clearly not.  And
the Supreme Court has said on several occasions that our nation tolerates
religious expression broadly -- and presidential proclamations, though they
skirt constitutionality, evidence that tolerance.  Why do you say
understanding of this principle has changed in the 20th century?  How did it
change?  What is your evidence?  Presidents other than Madison and Jefferson
have issued proclamations calling for prayer.  What has changed?

More tolerance than anyone else would have under a christian nation scheme.

Ed



Subject: Shiftiness
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:35 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d3e55-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>What we're seeing is not a new  or clearer understanding
of the Constitution, but a shift in opinion which uses the Constitution as a
screen for self-justification.<<

The fact is there were no decisions of the Court that established what
opinion was in the 19th century (the Mormon cases excepted).  To say there
has been a shift implies that there were decisions that were overruled.  This
is simply not so.

The only shift is in those who would revise history to impose views where
none exist.

Ed



Subject: Bible bill
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:36 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d3fca-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>In 1812 Madison signed a bill which  federally aided a
Bible Society in its goal of distributing the Bible. (BTW, I would have
opposed the Bill.)<<

Again, this doesn't ring true.  What was the bill, where was the society?
Give us facts, not bluff.

Ed



Subject: Re:Jeff'son, Madison:
Religi
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:45 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d4a4b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>In his later years, Madison changed his position. (His
*Detached Memoranda* is given undue emphasis.) HIs Memorial and Remonstrance
was not really that influential. The SupCt has given it more importance than
it had then.<<

Historians of the time say it turned the tide.  Madison, again showing his
modesty, said Henry's proposal was repugnant enough that it wouldn't have
carried anyway, but that's Madison's modesty talking, not the judgment of
history.  I take it you've never read the Memorial and Remonstrance, Kevin?
It is echoed in virtually every other document on religious freedom in
America.  What do you hope to gain in revising history to denigrate this
great man and his work?

>>His position would have lost if Patrick Henry had not assumed the
governorship and had been there to argue against Madison.<<

What a canard!! We are to believe that Henry's influence declined as his
authority increased?  This is a total crock.  There is not a shred of
evidence that Madison would not have won had Henry been a legislator, instead
of governor.  Henry was much the better orator, but Madison's writing had
already swayed the legislators.

>>Many voted against taxes for churches on purely economic grounds (post-war
poverty). Madison's position lost in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Maryland.<<

Madison's position lost in three states where he didn't argue it?  But it won
in nine others where he didn't argue it?  That's a tribute for the power of
the idea, and the unified opinion for religious freedom.

>> (BTW, I agree that the State should not tax in order to subsidize
preachers. And Madison argue his case on Christian grounds, not
anti-Christian grounds.)<<

It is good that you acknowledge Madison was not anti-Christian.  Now will you
also concede that religious freedom is not anti-Christian?

Madison argued that Jesus would never take such position as you argue for.
Jefferson, in the preamble to the Statute for Religious Freedom, suggests
that Jesus would have wanted a free and fair fight, not legislative
endorsement.  Indeed they do argue from a Christian perspective -- to a
largely or nominally Christian audience.

Why don't you follow their lead, and argue from a Christian perspective?

Ed



Subject: Holy Trinity bunk, 1
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:51 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d4ef3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>The dominant thinking in the days which saw the
ratification of the Constitution are not Jeffersons nor Madisons later years.
The dominant thinking is seen in the US Supreme Court's Holy Trinity ruling,
which led the Court to declare that this is a "Christian nation."<<

The Court did not "declare" any such thing in the case.  The Court DID say
that the law does not require it to assume that Congress hates Christianity,
when the Court construes laws.  Apparently the government had argued that the
Constitution required such an assumption of animosity.

Let's put this "Holy Trinity" thing down as humanely as possible.  The U.S.
Supreme Court has never, never -- repeat, NEVER -- "ruled" or "held" that the
U.S. is a Christian nation.  It is deceptive to quote this line from the 1892
case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. to this effect.

Justice David Brewer delivered the opinion, but the HOLDING was that the law
against importing labor did not apply to contract preachers, in this one
case.  The Court found that Congress had intended to stop a flow of cheap,
imported labor for primarily blue collar jobs.  Neither of these points has
anything to do with religion.

What, then, is the significance of Brewer's statement?  The chief
significance is that whenever someone cites this case in support of
fundamentalist Christian dogma, this is a sign that they are about to start
violating the Ninth Commandment (false witness).  There is no real legal
significance.

If you read the case you'll find that Brewer took off in a cloud of
hyperbole, citing all the religious activity in American life as a
justification for saying that Congress did not mean to ban Holy Trinity's
hiring of a preacher from England when Congress passed a law that said we
could not import workers.  It is a minor case which has been cited as
precedent perhaps once -- in other words, it is moribund as legal precedent
today, and its value NEVER extended to matters of religion.

The legal term for Brewer's infamous quote is "obiter dicta," which means,
literally, "passing words."  Here is how Black's Law Dictionary defines the
phrase: "Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the
case. . . . A remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision
upon a case, "by the way," that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not
directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily
involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by
 way of illustration, or analogy or argument.  Such are not binding as
precedent."

David Barton knows Holy Trinity is not binding, that the phrase is obiter
dicta.  If Kevin spends so much time in the library, he clearly knows this,
too.  So it is a bit disingenuous for him to represent the language as
anything more than it is -- "unnecessary" words.

BUT BREWER OVERRODE THE ACTUAL WORDS: Americans United for Separation of
Church and State found that in a case five years later, Methodists in New
Orleans sued to stop implementation of an ordinance that allowed prostitution
in one part of the city.  The Methodist group cited Brewer's language in Holy
Trinity and urged that prostitution was inconsistent with Christianity "which
the Supreme Court of the United States says is the foundation of our
government and the civilization which it has produced. . ."

[CONTINUED NEXT POST]



Subject: Holy Trinity debunk, 2
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d5177-at-3469db67@aol.com>

BUT BREWER OVERRODE THE ACTUAL WORDS: Americans United for Separation
of Church and State found that in a case five years later, Methodists in New
Orleans sued to stop implementation of an ordinance that allowed prostitution
in one part of the city.  The Methodist group cited Brewer's language in Holy
Trinity and urged that prostitution was inconsistent with Christianity "which
the Supreme Court of the United States says is the foundation of our
government and the civilization which it has produced. . ."

Brewer ignored this argument completely, and wrote the opinion in the case
for the city -- the decision to uphold the ordinance allowing prostitution
was unanimous.  It would be accurate to say that, to the extent the Court
said in Holy Trinity that the U.S. "is a Christian nation," it is also
accurate to say the Court specifically overrode that statement five years
later.  I note that in neither case did the holdings have anything to do with
the Xian nation stuff.

Language from the dense case: >>"Even the Constitution of the United States,
which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the
individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the
constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," etc.  And also provides in article 1, section 7 (a provision common
to many constitutions), that the Executive shall have ten days
 (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto
a bill.
...
"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as expressed by
its laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere a
clear recognition of the same truth.  Among other matters note the following:
The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the
Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most
conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of
God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the
 Sabbath; with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing
of courts, Legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the
churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town and
hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under
Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general
support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the
globe.  These, and many other matters which might be
 noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic
utterances that this is a Christian nation ..."  (143 US 457, Decided
2/29/1892)<<

ED COMMENTS: Brewer probably had a poor, first-year clerk write this opinion.
One wonders if Brewer were actually so dumb.

First, note Brewer accurately cites the First Amendment, saying that it says
government should stay out of religion (directly countering Kevin's
argument).

Second, note that Sunday is the traditional Roman day of rest, to which the
Christian church conformed.  It might be more accurate to say this piece of
evidence confirms that the U.S. is a pagan nation, or at least a polytheistic
one.  Just as that is absurd, so is the other.

Third, many oaths MAY end in an appeal "to the almighty."  But by law passed
in about 1790, official U.S. oaths do NOT.  Office holders may add the line
"so help me God" when they are sworn in, as good Christians like Bill Clinton
and Jimmy Carter did, and as do non-church goers like Ronald Reagan and
former-Quaker Richard Nixon.  But this line is NOT in the Constitution for
presidents, nor is it required of federal officials (I've taken the oath five
times).  You can look it up in the Constitution
 (Article II, section 1(8)).  Oaths don't count for squat in this debate.

[MORE, STILL]



Subject: Holy Trinity debunk, 3
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:56 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d5430-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Fourth, the Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38 (1985))
specifically discussed legislatures opening with prayers, and they say that
traditionally the Court has noted that this is a minor infraction of the
Establishment Clause that does not support religion -- it's minor, it's
usually non-sectarian and inoffensive to non-Christians, and, importantly,
elected representatives can get up and walk out at any time (opening prayers
are rarely attended by more than one or two elected officials).
  The Court notes in obiter dicta that, if these prayers were significant
enough that they established the U.S. as a Christian nation, or that they
favored any religion in any way, they would have to be struck down as
repugnant to the First Amendment.  You can look it up.

You have to wonder whether legislative prayers don't argue for the
ineffectiveness of prayers.  It seems no matter how hard or how often they
pray, the laws don't get a lot better . . . or maybe it is that the laws
conservatives grouse about really ARE laws from God, that God answers those
prayers with legislation that galls the religious right.  (If I were they,
I'd forget about mentioning these prayers!)

Fifth, wills in 1892 and wills now are not prefaced with religious lines such
as Brewer suggested.  Where in the world did he get that?  Go check your own
will (if you don't have one, give me a call if you're in Texas and I'll help
you find a willing attorney).

Sixth, no government laws "respect the Sabbath."  To the extent that such
laws DO respect any Sabbath, Christian or otherwise, they have been struck
down in a series of federal and state court decisions.  To the extent Sunday
closing laws have been upheld, it is solely because they have been found by
the courts to have a good secular purpose. 

Seventh, the other non-official, non-governmental manifestations of
Christianity mentioned by Brewer are exactly that: Non-official and
non-governmental.  Remember, Brewer's point was that a preacher was not in
the category of manual laborer against which the labor import ban was
directed.  Brewer's point wasn't that the U.S. has a religious bias
officially, only that it was unlikely Congress intended to ban this preacher
from boating from England to preach in Brooklyn.  Whoopie.

On cursory inspection we learn the case in Holy Trinity has no bearing on the
Establishment Clause.  On closer inspection we learn the opinion has no
effect on any religious issues, and that Brewer was hyperventilating when he
wrote it -- that it does not support, factually, the idea that our government
owes fealty to God and Jesus.

But we would have known that had we only read the Preamble to the
Constitution, which clearly and forever spells out from where the
Constitution gets its authority to function as the supreme law of the land:
"We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . ."

Why is it that wingnuts on the religious and cultic right cannot understand
such simple language?  Or do you think they DO understand it, and have
ulterior motives for pretending they don't?


Ed



Subject: Holy Trinity coda
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 12:59 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d5650-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin wrote:  >>The dominant thinking in the days which saw the
ratification of the Constitution are not Jeffersons nor Madisons later years.
The dominant thinking is seen in the US Supreme Court's Holy Trinity ruling,
which led the Court to declare that this is a "Christian nation."

http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm<<

Is it significant that this summary of the case cuts out all the material
that says what the HOLDINGS really were, or even what the subject matter of
the case was?  It's sort of like saying *The Brothers Karamazov* is a story
about a family.

Ed



Subject: Re:Education and
Constitutio
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 13:02 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d594a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>The Supreme Court in Cole v. Richardson stated that the
constitutionally-required oath of office implies an "affirmation of organic
law." Check your West's edition of the U.S. Code and you'll find that the
"organic law" of this country includes the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1789. Article III of the NW Ord
says that Religion (read: "Christianity") shall forever be taught in this
nation's schools. <<

Boy, talk about out on a limb!

Your citing of the Cole case may be accurate.  You citing of what is "organic
law" is accurate, though you use it oddly.  But then you misquote the
Northwest Ordinance, and insist we substitute language in your misquote to
get at your meaning.  How many degrees separated from the truth are we?

Kevin, do you have the language from the Northwest Ordinance -- either
version, or the enactment after 1791?

If so, please quote it directly, and accurately.

Ed



Subject: Re:Condoms
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 13:14 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d66a7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
Name a time in history when teenagers did not have sex.  You can't. 

KC:
Name a time in history when people didn't murder. You can't. So lets
eliminate all laws against murder. Let the government pass out more accurate
handguns so that innocent bystanders won't be injured.

Apples and oranges.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a law against
two teenagers having sex.

                                                      Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 13:39 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d8115-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>ttempts were made to revivify oaths in the Cold War (bonus question:
Why?)<<<

To weed out so called "atheistic commies".

Though I could never figure out why these McCarthy types thought that only
communists could be atheists, and only atheists could be communists.  It's
really quite silly when you think about it.

What's even more funny is that they thought a communist spy would balk at
giving any kind of oath, religious or not.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 13:53 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d8dd8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776: >>>And finally, Torcaso v. Watkins is the case that says
that religious oaths, such as the one Kevin prefers, are illegal, and run
against the grain of the American Revolution.  They run counter to the spirit
of religious freedom, etc., etc.

Do you expect us to let you get away with using admitted obiter dicta that is
clearly erroneous in a footnote to a decision which you say is an
abomination?

Make up your mind, Kevin, which way do you want Torcaso to stand?<<<

OH MY!   Kevin, you have really made a fool of yourself this time!  LOL

It just goes to show you that some people will stoop to the lowest lows in an
attempt to rob us of our liberties.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:00 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d93b0-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>The U.S. murdered a quarter of a million people in the Mid East. That
qualifies as pagan in my book.

Wolfsong:
Kevin, Pagan means an Earth centered spirituality.  How in the heck does
murder in the Mid East equate to Earth centered religion?  Your book needs a
little reality injected.

KC:
The definition of pagan used by the Fouders and early supreme court refered
to a group that did not recognize Christianity. The Bush-Clinton regime is a
pagan regime. You're using "pagan" in a dressed-for-the-90's book-signing
sense.



Subject: Secondary sources
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:01 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d946c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
If it was not recorded, then how did the "secondary sources" get it? 

KC:
Heard it in a speech.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:04 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d98a2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC:
The Bible sets down rules concerning swearing an oath. Those rules were
followed by those who drafted the Delaware Constitution. I want to follow
those rules. The State of California will not let me.>>

Wolfsong:
So, move to Delaware then.

KC: 
I can see you're real big on religious freedom.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Waco
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:09 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005d9d71-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I don't know whether to laugh or shudder.

Kevin said:  >>Next you'll be happy when U.N. Soldiers are on every street
corner. See:

http://www.jbs.org/vo13no20.htm#Beasts in Blue Berets<<

If you go to this site you'll see two photos that purport to show
"atrocities" by UN soldiers.  In one, two fellows in camouflage are bodily
carrying a person of indeterminate age.  In the foreground, some distance
away is a fire built on a tire or another container.  The publication, "The
New American," alleges the photo shows UN troops torturing a child, holding
the kid over a fire.

The troops are not identified by any insignia.  It is unclear they are UN
troops.  It IS clear that they are not holding the person over the flames.
It is not clear what the situation is.  It looks like a couple of cops
arresting a protester in Berkeley, California.  But let's not let the lack of
facts get in the way.

[snip]

Kevin, these photos are a crock.  They don't show what they purport to show,
just looking at the photos.  Indeed there is deception here, but the
deception of the photos is not being perpetrated by the UN, or any allied
agency.



KC:
The photo of the fire-torture was from the cover of *Village Voice* mag. The
story resulted in an international investigation of the charges. The two
soldiers have been identified and face charges.
(The fact that they face charges does not vindicate the system, IMHO.)

Your secular humanist bias renders you impotent in the cause of freedom. You
see photos of torture and refuse to act. Your mind is closed. 



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:12 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005da17f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Delaware was, with Pennsylvania, a state that tolerated a broad range of
religious belief -- in practice.  The laws may have been somewhat behind the
practice, but that does not change the continuing trend to full religious
freedom for people of all beliefs that accelerated during the American
Revolution.

Comments?

KC:
There has been a trend toward secular paganism and away from Puritan
casuistry, that's undeniable. The question is a legal one: did the Federal
Constitution prohibit Delaware's Theocratic oath. The answer is No. Did the
Federal Constitution prohibit prayer and Bible reading in schools. No. Not
until 1961-63 was it (arbitrarily) decided thus by the SupCt.



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:29 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005dae2e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC: What *does* this country stand for? Certainly not the high ideals
that motivated the Framers of the Constitution, who, after drafting that
instrument, went back to their states and drafted oaths like that of
Delaware.<<

Ed, always long on conclusions, short on evidence:

This is inaccurate.  

In Virginia, for example, George Mason wrote  a bill of rights that included
religious freedom.  All the former colonies disestablished their churches.  

KC:
This has nothing to do with the Big Debate in our day. No ecclesiastical
denominations receive government funds. That was a big issue then, not now.
The issue now is, Can the Federal Government prohibit local governments from
having prayer and Bible reading in their schools. This issue was never even
CONTEMPLATED in the revolutionary period, except by the wildest
"freethinkers," who are on record with public assurances that the new
Constitution was not a threat to Christianity. It is fantasy to say
 religion in schools was made unconstitutional in 1789.

ED:
Oaths requiring religious fealty were on the way out, often disregarded as
they were in Virginia, where even Catholics were elected to high office
despite official bans on the practice.

KC: I'm not talking about an oath requiring someone to be an Anglican.
Denominational tests oaths were an issue then, not now.

ED:
To the extent these oaths require allegiance to God, they are relics -- dead
in spirit by 1787, if not dead by law earlier.  

KC:
Sheer fabrication! I have cited authorities who declare the universal
understanding of oaths to be religious solemnities. Cite some evidence that
oaths were not viewed as allegiance to God. Show us something to lead us to
believe that the legal instruments drafted in that day were intended to
codify this understanding of oaths. Wild imagination. Secular dreaming.

(Though I grant there were a handful of "freethinkers" who wanted this to be
true. It was not universally-believed, and not implemented in law.)

ED:
Attempts were made to revivify oaths in the Cold War (bonus question:  Why?),
and that is why the Supreme Court got the issue in 1961.  

KC:
Evidence? This, along with school prayer cases, and Roe v. Wade, were test
cases, where the ACLU drummed up a plaintiff to change the law through
judicial activism, rather than through democratic legislation.

ED:
There is very little evidence that the oaths were more than dead letters from
1776 to 1961.  

KC: I cited de Toqueville. It was a universal practice, popularly supported.

ED: 
Rarely were they used to bar anyone from office (apart from Jefferson, can
you imagine a deist or atheist WINNING an election?), 

KC: precisely, which indicates the popular support for Christian
understandings. Jefferson could not have been elected without Christians
being assured he was no threat to their liberties.

continued===>



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:34 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005db149-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg writes: <<Are you aware of what kind of teaching goes on in the
schools?  How children are being taught to dishonor their parents?  That what
the group decides on an answer to a math question is correct?  There is a lot
of new age mischief.  There is radical control of children.  Have you noted
today's young work force?>>

I'm interested to know where your knowledge of what goes on in the public
schools comes from, ZKMeg? BTW, do you have kids in the public schools?

I do. I'm not going to pretend, like you, that my knowledge extends to the
entire spectrum of public schools in America. But I can tell you, based on my
own experience, that this is not the kind of teaching that goes on in the
schools that my daughters (who are 10 and 15) attend. We have a great deal of
parent involvement in the schools here. I actually KNOW what happens, I am
not depending on hearsay.

<< . . . children are being taught to dishonor their parents . . . >> In what
way? I haven't seen anything like that.

<< . . . what the group decides on an answer to a math question is correct .
. . >> I think you may be a bit confused on current math teaching techniques,
ZKMeg. This I know about first-hand. I'm a science writer and translator, and
I volunteer in math and science classes, both in elementary and high school.
(Last year I was in the schools up to three times a week.) The solution to a
math problem stays the same. What current math teaching tries to do is to get
the kids to use their brains to work out the
 different ways in which one can GET to the solution. It's the thought
process mathematicians and scientists themselves use, to find the best (they
often say "the most ELEGANT") way of solving a problem. Along the way the
kids are probably going to stumble and trip over themselves. But in the end
they will not only come up with the correct solution, they will have an
inkling of how a real mathematician would get there. 

<< . . . a lot of new age mischief. >> I would need some examples of this to
be able to evaluate your comment. I'm not even sure what "new age" is,
anyway. Often people seem to use it as short-hand for anything they can't
quite understand, or that is different from what they learned in their
childhood.
    In my 15-year-old's classes, BTW, they are too focussed on getting the
kids ready for college for much "mischief," new-age or not. Sometimes I wish
they would take time for a bit more mischief and frivolity.

<< . . . radical control of children >> What does this MEAN?

<< . . . today's young work force . . .>>  It's my impression that they, by
and large, work hard (and often for less pay). These "kids" have to scramble!
There is no cushy way into a comfortable, guaranteed 20-year job with the
same company anymore. They have to have specific skills and technical
training of a high order to even be considered for a job by most companies.
Otherwise, it's MacDonalds or Burger King. And even there, when I go in, I
see the kids working darn hard. And smiling through it all!
 They're amazing.  You know, it's a real pity when an older person simply
dismisses an entire younger generation. I LIKE today's young people.



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005db612-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
though I am aware of one Quaker elected popularly who then refused to take
the oath (most of the colonies, after the war, looked the other way when
Quakers assumed posts.  The issue was good government, not religious
inquisition.).

KC:
Which war? The Revolutionary War? Then this is fantasy. The laws were all
drafted to permit "affirmation" rather than swearing, which is what Quakers
objected to, not believing in God.
"Good government" was universally defined by adherence to God's Principles.

ED:
If you consult professional historians, and good histories, you will find a
strong trend to religious freedom in all of America.  Greater toleration
allowed greater cooperation in fighting the British, and later in commerce
and trade.  Though you can find momentary lapses, by and large the rules that
allowed the death penalty for heresy were not honored, nor did anyone expect
such harshness.  

KC:
In a Godly society, just because no one is executed for murder doesn't mean
no one takes the law against murder seriously. It means they DO take it
seriously and don't murder. This is the point of such laws, as I documented
in an earlier post.

Now I grant that there has been a continual secularizing trend, and now
secularism is regnant. But you have just proven my point: that when
secularists don't like the law, they don't obey it, they take oaths falsely,
they don't follow procedures they swore to uphold. People who took oaths to
uphold a legal system based on Christianity went on to subvert the
foundations. A lawyer should be the last person to defend such duplicity and
lawlessness.

ED:
When they gave thought to it, the Americans almost always vitiated such laws.
Common law jurisdiction that granted great power to local clergy were swept
away in some states by codifying blasphemy and heresy -- though Kevin's
sources claim these moves to religious freedom were just the opposite -- and
common law crimes (heresy and blasphemy) were grossly unprosecuted in other
states.

KC:
Again, no prosecutions does not mean the law is not respected. Respect for
law means obedience to the law. If, however, you show that there was rampant
heresy, you have shown that there was rampant lawlessness. My point was that
THIS WAS THE LAW, that the law was Christian, which you previously denied,
and now admit, at the cost of the integrity of those who did not keep their
oaths to uphold the law.

This is also an example of elites who subvert the will of the majority.



Subject: Re:Maritime theocracy?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 14:51 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005dc512-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
I asked, earlier:  >>Pray tell.  What is the theology behind maritime law?
Environmental law?  Workers Compensation?<<

KC: Respect for property: "Thou shalt not steal."
Environment: Ex 22:6  If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the
stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he
that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

Workers Comp: Exodus 21:18-19  And if men strive together, and one smite
another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
{19} If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that
smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall
cause him to be thoroughly healed.<<

On this basis, "thou shalt not steal" would be the basis of almost every law,
no?

Kevin, consult the incredibly lengthy literature on maritime law, and tell us
honestly if you think that the grey water discharge rules have anything at
all to do with stealing.  
What about the work rules?  Can you really square any of the maritime work
rules with anything anywhere in the Bible?  (If so, you ought to do a paper
on it).   There is almost zero correlation.

KC:
Ignorance is not an argument. The literature on Christian origins of Western
Law is quite large. Start with the work of Harold Berman, Joseph Story Prof
of Law at Harvard.
Obviously a lot of modern law is simply designed to buttress the power of the
State. I don't defend this.

ED:
You missed the environmental clauses of the Bible.  I suppose under a
"christian government" you would be flogging the CEOs of mining companies, or
perhaps drawing-and-quartering them, under the scripture you cite.  

KC: ALl of your many questions, "what does the Bible say to do when X
happens," is a field of law called "casuistry." the first 200 years of
American legal history is full of this activity. Criminal codes were
annotated with Bible references to reflect the work of legal authorities
combing scripture for guidance on how to craft the laws. All of these
situations have been worked out. See Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law
for more data.

ED:
But then, the founders didn't rely on your scripture either, on the
environmental issue.

KC: 
The passage was well known. I'll see if I can find a direct quotation of it
from an older code and post it.

ED:
Your misunderstanding of workers compensation shows the difficulty -- you
cite a scripture in which one worker commits a tort on another.  But what if
the tort is committed by the owner of the vineyard?  What if it is
unintentional?

KC:
Casuistry. It's been answered. These were questions asked and answered
hundreds of years ago. Secular Americans believe all history begins and ends
with them.

ED:
More to the point -- what does the Bible say about a simple accident where no
one is adjudged to be at fault?  The worker is left adrift under a Biblical
system.  

KC:
How do you know this, Ed? Have you studied the Bible? Have you studied John
Cotton and Richard Hooker? You make these bold pronouncements attempting to
mislead the gullible, and you have nothing to stand on.

ED:
Worse, under the verse you cite, there is solid economic advantage in killing
the fellow you injure, instead of letting him live to be a burden on you.

KC: That is certainly a danger in a secular humanist society, where
materialism is rampant, and money is more important that people. Christianity
provides the foundation for a just and compassionate society, as the Founders
understood.

ED;
If you can provide any citation from any workers compensation law in the U.S.
which suggests it is based in any way on Biblical law or scripture, I shall
be amazed.

KC:
Luke 16:31  And He said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.




Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 15:17 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005de0b7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776:
>>KC: Reading is down. Maybe that explains why no one understands the
Original Intent of the Constitution. Dallas schools (and nearly all others)
were not illegal for 170 years. <<

ED:
You've provided nothing to suggest that schools were the bastions of
religious instruction that you say they were.  

KC:
http://www.christiananswers.net/wall/wbbooks.html
Order the textbooks and read them. What more can I say? I've quoted the
founders who all said teaching religion in the schools was the most important
thing we could do to ensure the prosperity  of our nation. I've cited the
**organic law of this county** expressed in numerous state constitutions. 
You don't WANT to hear the truth.

ED:
I suggest that the reason the schools were legal from 1820 (when public
schooling began in any significant numbers) to 1997 is that they avoided
entanglements with religous instruction.  They didn't do it.  Oh, a few here
and there had prayers -- but most didn't, 

KC:
Why should I bother citing books; you won't read them. You're living in a
dream world.
But I understand how your imagination works. It is true that schools were
universally Christian before the Revolution. You seem to admit that. Atheists
have been working tirelessly to rip Christianity out of the schools and (it
would seem, from the perspective of the Founders) to destroy free government
(and it has surely been destroyed). The trend for the last 200 years has
definitely been toward secularization. But having seen the results, many are
rejecting this secularization and organizing to return
 to our Christian roots. They are reading "Education and the Founding
Fathers" by Barton and seeing how Christianity dominated schools at the time
of the Constitution, and how all the Founders applauded this and encouraged
it. (And certainly did not make it illegal!) So go ahead and sit on your
laurels; the system WILL be changed.


ED:
In point of fact some states banned Bibles in schools under their own laws.
The Illinois Supreme Court got a case in 1911, and determined that the state
constitution prohibited coerced school prayers.

KC:
This is so obviously an atypical case, although I grant that it represents
the trend of the 20th century. Compare the logic of this case with the logic
of the Holy Trinity Court. They are worlds apart, the important difference
being that the world of Holy Trinity represented the world of the Framers of
the Constitution, and the world of your case represents the world of big
government, broken families,  and unsafe streets.

ED:
The Department of Education has the most extensive collection of American
schoolbooks in the world.  Included are copies of the New England Primer, Ben
Franklin's version, Webster's blue book, McGuffey, and text books from the
entirety of European occupation of the continent.  If you peruse those
volumes, as I was obliged to do, you will find precious little religious
intent.

KC:
I just order them from Barton. I have them in my hot little hand. All of them
would UNQUESTIONABLY be ruled "unconstitutional" by the current Supreme Court
-- you have to admit that, Ed. The fact that all these books -- too religious
for you and not religious enough for me -- sold millions, yet are banned
today, shows the lawlessness of the Court. The Founders did not intend to ban
these books. The Sup Ct is wrong. "Separation" of school and religion is a
myth, not a doctrine of the FOundnig Fathers.




Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 15:39 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005dfad7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed, a week ago: >>Certainly it was true in 1800 that the federal
government and most state governments did not require Bibles in public
schools.  <<

KC:>> Name one school that did not teach the Bible in 1800. Name one Founder
besides Jefferson who might have wanted to keep children from learning the
Bible. The point is that the overwhelming majority of Founders favored Bible
in public schools and assemblies.<<

My point, Kevin, is that there were not public schools in 1800.  

The eminent historian Daniel Boorstin in his award-winning trilogy on "The
Americans" notes that only Boston Latin stands out as a public school for the
first two centuries of colonial life in America.  Public schools as we know
them were virtually non-existent in 1800.  Name one that didn't use the
Bible?  Tell you what -- how about first you name some public schools?  They
simply did not exist in any numbers until after 1820.

If you find the one public school, that one is the first one I name that did
not include the Bible as part of its curriculum for religious instruction
(I'm sure the Bible was still used as a reader -- a lousy reader -- well into
the 19th century).

KC:
I hate to prove you wrong, because it makes my spiritual ancestors look so
bad. And I want to make sure it is understood that Reconstructionists
univerally oppose public schools.

From a paper prepared for an education sumposium sponsored by the Institute
for Humane Studies and the Center for Independent Education, published in
*The Twelve-Year Sentence,* Rickenbacker, ed. 
Compulsory schooling began, in the modern world, with the Protestant
Reformation. . . .
It is hardly a coincidence, then, that compulsory and public schooling
appeared first in America under the aegis of the Calvinist Puritans,
particularly in the leading Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay. While
voluntary parental education, and largely private education, prevailed
outside of New England, the militant Puritans who founded the Massachusetts
Bay Colony were eager to adopt the Calvinist plan for compulsory education in
order to ensure the perpetuation of Calvinism and the suppression of
 possible dissent. Only a year after passing its first set of laws, the
colony, in 1642, enacted a compulsory literacy law for all children . . . .
Five years later the colony followed up this law with the establishment of a
system of public schools.

Puritan influence spread swiftly from Massachusetts to the other colonies of
New England, and compulsory schooling spread to the same degree. High Puritan
Connecticut soon imposed compulsory schools, and in 1742, that colony
attempted to suppress the dissenting "New Light" movement by prohibiting that
sect from operating any schools. Connecticut gave the reason that, if
permitted to operate schools, the New Light sect "may tend to train youth in
ill principles and practices, and introduce such disorders
 as may be of fatal consequence to the public peace and weal of this colony."


---------
Most historians tend to focus on the acts of national importance, not local.
Governments of the 17th-18th century were more local than big government
liberals of today can fathom.
But they existed, and they had schools, and they were Calvinist, and
local-run Calvinist schools were never intended by the Framers to be
unconstitutional. Jefferson said the right to teach religion "rested with the
states."



Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 15:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e120b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Similarly, the federal government had no role in education, other than the
disposal of public lands.  In those cases it is clear that the government did
not urge the Bible as curriculum, especially for religious reasons.  

KC:
This statement completely ignores the provision of most state constitutions
in accord with the Northwest Ordinance.
The issue is not federal schools, or what the Federal governmt does in
schools. The issue is, can local school boards prescribe prayer and bible
reading in its schools. The Constitution was never intended to give the
Federal Courts the power to prescribe any answer (one way or the other) to
this question.

ED:
Your claim that "the overwhelming majority of founders" wanted the Bible used
as curriculum is incredible fatuousness.  

KC: I don't know what connotations you have inthe phrase "Bible used as
curriculum." It was never the sole text, if that's what you're implying, and
I'm not arguing that. So I'll move on to the next straw man.

ED: There were no public schools in significant numbers.  The founders had no
opinions, they were trying to get the government up and running.  Where they
DID have opinions, they were strongly opposed to mindless instruction in
religion, 

KC: Yeah, right Ed. I'm advocating mindless instruction in religion.

ED: and took every opportunity to go for hard academic subjects instead.

KC: As if the hard headed Calvinists of Mass Bay were not into rigorous
academics. your're reading your experience with mindless airheaded American
fundamentalists back into the 1700's. This is bogus history Ed.

ED:
In fact, the education for religious readers of the day included more secular
stuff than you now advocate.  

KC: Poppycock!!! On what basis do you say this, Ed?!? The whole argument of
Christian anti-public school folks is to get more academics into the
classroom, and less government social experimentation. The Christian Readers
of McGuffy and Webster were far more academic that government schools of the
late 20th cnetury.

ED: James Madison's college education under John Witherspoon would have
prepared him to be a preacher -- but that is because it well grounded him in
real literature, tough issues, philosophy, and other hard academics.  It
would be impossible to be fluent in Greek and Latin at the age of 16, as was
Thomas Jefferson, and take the seminary courses you seem to urge.

KC: Ed, you are way over your head! This is incredible! Witherspoon was a
Calvinist of the old school! He is a favorite of the Reconstructionists!!
This is laughable. (No, it's pathetic.)

ED:
By the way, there is not a whit of evidence that Jefferson or Madison ever
attended a school that had school prayer.  

KC: What in the world are you smoking, Ed? Here are some of Princeton's
requirements while Witherspoon was President:

"Every student shall attend worship in the college hall morning and evening
at the hours appointed and shall behave with gravity and reverence during the
whole service. Every student shall attend public worship on the Sabbath . . .
.   Besides the public exercises of religous worship on the Sabbath, there
shall be assigned to each class certain exercises for their religious
instruction suited to the age and standing of the pupils . . . and no student
belonging to any class shall neglect them."

All colleges were similar. 

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the Founders intended their Constitution
to abolish the kind of education Madison received at Princeton. 

Your secular dreams will soon be overturned by historical reality, Ed.




Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e24bc-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
You claim the Bible was a key part of the curriculum in public schools in
1800, and government leaders favored this.

I've pointed out that there were no such schools in 1800; 

                                      and you're wrong

I've pointed out that the official pronouncements of the government don't
support your proposition. 

                                      and you're wrong

The remaining issue is one that I've not seen you (or anyone else) document
-- that the Bible was key part of the curriculum.  Any historian of education
should be able to verify your charge, but I note that you don't cite any of
them.

Apart from David Barton, have you got any sources that say the Bible was as
important as you say it was?  Do they say school prayer was widespread?  

Do you have any CREDIBLE sources that say so?

KC:
THis is wild. You say Barton is unreliable because he quotes secondary
sources (which is no longer the case) I say, read the texts, read the
Founders. Now you say, quote a secular historian and THEN I'll believe you.

Forget it, Ed. Any secondary source I quote will be labeled "not credible" if
it does not agree with the current imaginations of the US Supreme Court.

I cited the case in 1844 where someone wanted to build a school which would
perfectly meet the requirements of the current supreme court: it would teach
only infidelity and NOT Christianity. Clergy were banned. The US Supreme
Court ruled it an impossiblity:

"It is unnecessary for us to consider . . . the establishment of a school or
college for the propagation of  . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity.
Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country."

The Court held that a school must "instruct in the general principles of
Christianity." The Court could "not overlook  the blessings which such men by
their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay *must* impart to their
youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament,
without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the
college -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its
glorious principles of morality inculcated?  . . . Where
 can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly
as from the New Testament?"

That was the US Supreme Court in 1844, that was education in Madison's day,
and not the dream world of Ed and the now-secular Supreme Court.



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:25 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e3458-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said:  >>In 1844 a Frenchman left a will bequeathing a substantial sum
to a city to build a school which would NOT teach the Bible. Before the US
Supreme Court, Daniel Webster argued against the will from Jesus' command,
"Let the children come to me and do not try to stop them." The US Supreme
Court ruled that the will could not be enforced because this is a Christian
nation and morality is best taught from the New Testament. This case
reflected the view of the vast majority of the Founders, and of
 the American people. The modern post-Everson Court has not followed the
Constitution, but has simply imposed its own Secular Humanist agenda on the
country.<<

Why does this not have the holy ring of truth to it?

KC:
Because you are biased, prejudiced, closed-minded, and you have an axe to
grind. If you want to argue that secular schools are better than Christian
schools, fine. I'll argue. But your argument is that the Framers of the
Constitution INTENDED to eliminate Christianity from the public sphere, and
this is historically untenable. All historical evidence is filtered through
your presuppositional grid.

ED:
Tell me, Kevin, does the Supreme Court of the U.S. often get involved in will
cases?  

KC:
The range of cases heard by the US Sup Ct in the early 1800's is vastly
different from cases heard today. Congress has limited jurisdiction of the
Court because the absense of Christianity from our culture has crowded the
courts.

ED:
Please give us the case.  This one I gotta read for myself.

KC:
Will you?
I already know what you're going to say Ed: "This is a wills case." And
everything the Court said about Christianity will be ignored, like you do
with the Holy Trinity case.

I really don't think you'll read it even if you go to the library. It's a
very, very long case, and you'[ll be bored to tears reading all the **Bible
verses** that Daniel Webster cited in his argument before the Court (which
lasted HOURS, BTW).

Well, OK, I'll give you one more chance:

Vidal v. Girard's Executors 43 US 126, 11 L.Ed 205 (1844)



Subject: Disestablishment
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e4b2c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>KC: All states publicly and officially recognized
Christianity (refuting the myth of "separation of religion and state"), but
only four had state-established denominations. In Ed's post right before this
one, he said in "1785" Americans rejected Christianity and "went for
religious freedom instead." Obviously this was not exactly true. <<

I beg to differ.  By the time it was the U.S. -- that is, in 1789 -- only
four states still had vestiges of establishment, not the other way around.
Only by completely ignoring the Statute for Religious Freedom could anyone
confuse Virginia as an establishment state -- and since it is such a famous
law, one of the three achievements for which Jefferson wished to be
remembered in his epitaph, ignoring it takes a mote of considerable note.

And as to the effectiveness of established religion in any case, often these
laws were ignored.  The laws mandating attendance at Anglican churches in
Virginia should have produced a flood of litigation -- it simply does not
exist.  Washington's failure to take communion made him subject to fine an
imprisonment, but who would dare take such action against the great Gen.
Washington?  To argue that establishment laws were enforced is even more
silly than arguing that they were just.

Winthrop Hudson's college text, *Religion in America* (I've got a 3d edition,
Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1981), says "Philip Schaff was right when he
asserted that the whole question of religious freedom had been settled prior
to the formation of the national government by the previous history of the
American colonies. (Schaff, *Church and State in the United States* (NY
1888)).  Of the original thirteen colonies, four -- Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- had long been fully
 committed to a policy of religious liberty, and the Anglican establishments
in five of the remaining colonies -- New York, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia -- quickly toppled after the outbreak of
hostilities when the supporting prop of English authority was withdrawn.  The
speedy action of New York in repealing all laws or acts which 'may be
construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians'
was typical.  Indeed, the North Carolina Assembly anticipated
 the repudiation of British authority when it refused in 1773 to renew the
Vestry Act, an action which had the practical effect of bringing the
establishment there to an end.  Only in Virginia, and in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, was there delay; and even in these four
arease the struggle for religious liberty was carried on during the war years
as part of the revolutionary struggle itself.  In Virginia, as early as June
12, 1776, an effort was made to forestall the popular tide and to
 preserve some remnant of the establishment by adopting a 'Declaration of
Rights' which asserted that 'all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion.'"

Kevin, you've been lied to.  Take that history book of yours back to the
bookstore and see if you can get a refund.  Any book that says the colonists
were establishing religion and tightening the screws on dissenters when they
were doing just exactly the opposite isn't worth the paper it's printed on,
quite literally.

Ed



Subject: Theocracy and Humanism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:46 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e505d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776:
RodDMartin said: >>The humanist worldview has been held even by the Supreme
Court to be a religion, thus affirming what we already knew.<<

I said:  >>Quickly checking, I can find no such holding.  Have you a
citation?  Are you sure it is the holding, and not obiter dicta?<<

KC responded: >>Torcaso v. Watkins, note 11. It is dicta, but undisputed. I
believe it was Leo Pfeffer who argued the case, and won, but later expressed
his disappointment that the Court publically admitted Humanism was a
religion.<<

Undisputed, but who would dispute obiter dicta, and dicta in a footnote, no
less?  The reality is that, while the footnote says that "among religions"
which do not teach belief in a Supreme Being is, inter alia, "secular
humanism,' the fact remains that secular humanism does not meet most other
tests one might use for determining whether it is a religion.  

KC:
Tests WHO might use? The point is not arguable: the SupCt has redefined the
traditional legal definition of "religion" to include those who do not
believe in God. See the Seeger case.

ED: Is it organized?  Not really.  Does it have an orthodox line of thought?
No.  Does it have clergy?  

KC:
I haven't been a member of any ecclesiastical denomination for over 10 years.
Am I not "religious"? Your test-questions are not the questions the Sup Ct
was asking when it made its determination.

ED: Can one be a member of the "secular humanist" religion AND be Catholic?
Yes.  Mormon?  Yes.  Baptist?  Yes.  Jew?  Yes.

KC:
Only by betraying their Christian principles. Christianity and Secular
Humanism are antithetical.

ED:
Then why would we call it a religion?

KC:
Because it deals with first principles, or "ultimate concern" Ask the Supreme
Court why they let an atheist obtain conscientious objector status when he
was not "religious" in the traditinoal sense.

Ed: And finally, Torcaso v. Watkins is the case that says that religious
oaths, such as the one Kevin prefers, are illegal, and run against the grain
of the American Revolution.  They run counter to the spirit of religious
freedom, etc., etc.

KC: Which history is false.

ED:
Do you expect us to let you get away with using admitted obiter dicta that is
clearly erroneous in a footnote to a decision which you say is an
abomination?

KC: I see no reason not to. The conclusion is NOT clearly erroneous. Read the
Seeger decision. You can be "religious" without going to church. Ask
Wolfsong.

ED:
Make up your mind, Kevin, which way do you want Torcaso to stand?

KC:
Go back to the top of this post. Read the question. The answer is: Yes, the
Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion. You read the
footnote. What are we arguing about?



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:55 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e5d6d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC:
Implying, I guess, that I've taken the Holy Trinity case out of context. By
defining it as an "imported labor case" it sounds so unreasonable for me to
suggest the case says something about our interpretation of the First
Amendment. This is such a slippery approach. <<

Let me remove doubt.  Not just implying, let me say straight out that you
have torn the case wholly out of context.  Do you wonder why your
Constitutional Law text does not include the case as a religion case?  It's
because it was NOT a religion case.  It's not keyed as a religion case in
West, either.

The case got to the Supreme Court because under the letter of the law,
importing a preacher from Britain was illegal.  The difficulty lay in the
fact that the law listed some categories as exempt, and preachers were not
listed.  The real target of the law was stopping the importation of
"undesirables"  -- read Chinese, Irish, whatever group was disliked at that
precise moment.  An Englishman, and a preacher, wasn't in that category.  

But how to keep him in the country?  The question was, did Congress intend to
ban preachers, was how the advocates for the preacher framed it, and how the
Court decided it.  They determined that even though not designated as one who
was exempt, Congress might have intended to exempt white collar preachers.
The government argued that the Court couldn't interpret the law that way,
that the Court had to assume that Congress was hostile to religious workers,
as required by the First Amendment.  

It was in response to this last question that Justice Brewer fulminated so
effusively -- pointing out that it would be silly to insist that Congress was
hostile to Christian preachers as a matter of policy, but doing so with an
impressive display of thunder that echoes faintly even today.

That Brewer was wrong on most counts is beside the point, almost.  In any
case, his point was that Congress is not required by the Constitution to
regard Christianity as a threat to society.  That is, I think, a far cry from
the usual christian nationalist policy, and one of the reasons that I say --
not imply -- that you rip the case out of context to cite the obiter dicta.

Plus, as I indicated in a series of posts earlier today, Justice Brewer
repudiated your views in a case just a few years later.

Brewer was quite a Christian.  He wrote later that he had not meant to imply
an establishment of Christianity, further distancing himself from the
misreading of Holy Trinity Kevin urges.

Holy Trinity is a labor case, not a religion case.  The only holding that
gets close to religion says that Courts do not need to assume Congress is
hostile toward Christianity in construing vague laws that touch on religion,
not the usually cited claptrap that the Court "ruled" or "held" the U.S. to
be Christian.  

Ed



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 16:57 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e5fa8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Not only is that the express holding of the court,<<

If it is the "express holding of the Court," why do all references to the
case disagree?  You can list the holdings if you care to.  That the U.S. is a
christian nation is not among them.

You have better access to West than I -- why don't you list the holdings West
supplies?

Ed



Subject: Theocracy and Jefferson
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:12 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e7427-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>Jefferson was rarely quoted by courts before 1947 for this reason. His
ideas were definitely not mainstream.<<

ED:
Washington is quoted not at all by the courts.  Who cares?  What sort of a
crackpot standard is this?

It's a standard used by a number of Law Review articles arguing that current
SupCt Jurisprudence does not represent Original Intent such as:  D.
Dreisbach, "A New Perspective on Jefferson's Views on Church-State Relations:
The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in its Legislative
Context," 35 Amer. J. of Leg. Hist. 205 (1991). Washington isn't cited by the
Court because he was a military leader, not a legislator or jurist. Duh.



Subject: Theocracy and Jefferson
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:17 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e7bde-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
>>A more objective determination of influence, such as that found on the
Separation of Ch&St Home page
(http://www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/index.htm) ranks Jefferson as
19th among the Founders in importance.<<

ED:
What kind of folly is it to "rank" the founders?  This sounds like an
exercise in revisionism to justify the denigration of the great men, as
indeed we see.  Jefferson gave electricity to the ideas of freedom; he
encouraged freedom in the entire world.  His careful attention to how
governments might be made good in spite of men have proven the greatest
political thought so far in history.  And you rank him 19th?  What, his RBI
average is low?

KC:
The Page is a secular humanist source, not a Christian one. They FAVOR
separation of church and state. Your  hostile biases are amusing.



Subject: Re:Theocracy and
Jefferson
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:32 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005e92ce-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
You can look it up in nearly any history book.  Jefferson and Madison were
giants in the establishment of freedom of thought and religion in the U.S.,
and the world.  

KC:
You exhibit a blind faith in secondary sources. The picture of Jefferson and
Madison given by most 20th century secular historians overstates J&M's
secular sides and the impact of their secular ideas on the Constitution.

ED:
To say otherwise is a contemptible lie.

KC:
So you're calling a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (Rehnquist) a
contemptible liar. Fine. He is calling attention to other scholars who are
calling into question the emphasis placed on the secular notions of J&M. I
suppose they just don't know as much as you do, right Ed? 

The post-Everson Supreme Court has distorted history. Many credible scholars
are documenting this. You can ignore them if you want to, Ed; it's a free
country.



Subject: Re:Shiftiness
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:42 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ea049-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>What we're seeing is not a new  or clearer understanding
of the Constitution, but a shift in opinion which uses the Constitution as a
screen for self-justification.<<

ED:
The fact is there were no decisions of the Court that established what
opinion was in the 19th century (the Mormon cases excepted).  

KC;
Wild Logic. The cases you blandly brush off as exceptions prove the point.
Cite a case which said we are a secular nation!!!

ED:
To say there has been a shift implies that there were decisions that were
overruled.  

KC:
Holy Trinity was in effect overturned by Macintosh. Engel v. Vitale ripped
God out of schools without overturning any cases -- it DID NOT CITE A SINGLE
PRECEDENT!!  It was an amazing case of brazen judicial fiat, imposing the
religion of Secular Humanism onthe states.




Subject: Re:Bible bill
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:57 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005eb146-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>In 1812 Madison signed a bill which  federally aided a
Bible Society in its goal of distributing the Bible. (BTW, I would have
opposed the Bill.)<<

Again, this doesn't ring true.  What was the bill, where was the society?
Give us facts, not bluff.

Ed

KC:
Last weekend I had fun answering all the posts on this Board. This may be my
last weekend.
I've posted enough cases and primary quotes that it's pretty rude to suggest
that I am "bluffing," that is, throwing out some case or event which I know
is not true in the hopes that you will say, "OK, you win, this is a Christian
nation" out of fear or something.





The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Wash: Gales
& Seaton, 1853) 12th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1325: "An Act for the relief of the
Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising
and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during
the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by
the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of
the Holy Bible, be andthe same are hereby
 remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond
or security give for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be
cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813."

Now, Ed, you can say that even a giant like Madison was not always consistent
with his secularist ideals. Jefferson might have said exactly that. Fine. My
points: 

1. J&M also had Christian ideals, and the manifestation of those Christian
ideals, as in the law above, would have been ruled "unconstitutional" by the
current court. That shows that the Court does not understand Madison and
Jefferson. Nor does the Court understand the entire Congress that passed that
law, the Supreme Court that allowed it to stand, and the Framers who framed
the Constitution.  The Court does not understand the Christian history of
this country before the Revolution, does not understand
 how it shaped the Constitution, and how it continued to exist without legal
condemnation for 170 years.

2. The secular ideals of J&M were not the ideals of the vast majority of
Americans, and were not put into legal force by the Constitution. The Court
is imposing its own secular agenda using the Constitution (or Jeff. and
Madison) as a cloak. Madison did not advocate stripping Christianity from the
national landscape.The Constitution did not do so.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 17:58 EST
From: SuesterTwo
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005eb24b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<Leave <<teaching to the schools>>             Are you aware of what
kind of teaching goes on in the schools?  How children are being taught to
dishonor their parents?  That what the group decides on an answer to a math
question is correct?  There is a lot of new age mischief.  There is radical
control of children.  Have you noted today's young work force?

For a better America better get things turned around, and fast.>>

We're not talking about what's being taught in schools.  Don't throw a red
herring into this.  The point you made was that prayer belongs in schools.
Prayer doesn't belong in schools, it belongs in church or the home.  Whatever
the pitfalls of our education system, lack of prayer isn't one of them.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:02 EST
From: SuesterTwo
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005eb77b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<Slamming public school teachers does no one any good.  I urge you to
retract your statements, and get out there to lend a hand -- not the back of
a hand.

Ed

(Is it clear my dander is up?)>>

::applause:: Great post, Ed!



Subject: Re:Jeff'son, Madison:
Religi
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:21 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ecaf2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
 I take it you've never read the Memorial and Remonstrance, Kevin?  

KC: 
Obviously you haven't read my analysis of it on my web site or in previous
posts.

ED:
It is echoed in virtually every other document on religious freedom in
America.  What do you hope to gain in revising history to denigrate this
great man and his work?

KC:
I'm not trying to "denigrate" him, onl yput him in context. His memorial, as
I have shown, was still Christian, and was against taxes imposed to support
clergy. That battle is OVER!! For the Supreme Court to return to this
document and urge that Madison wanted all Christianity removed from schools
and public life is WRONG! That was not the battle Madison fought, and if he
did want that, he lost - at least legally. He would have to wait 170 years
for Secular Humanists to get on the bench and violate their
 oaths of office.

>>His position would have lost if Patrick Henry had not assumed the
governorship and had been there to argue against Madison.<<

What a canard!! 

KC:
Madison admitted it himself.

ED:
We are to believe that Henry's influence declined as his authority increased?
This is a total crock. 
KC: He was not in the legislature to argue the point. He was in the Gov's
mansion.

Ed:
 There is not a shred of evidence that Madison would not have won had Henry
been a legislator, instead of governor.  Henry was much the better orator,
but Madison's writing had already swayed the legislators.

KC:
Where do you get this? Madison was losing before Henry left. Geo.Washington,
John Marshall, Richard Henry Lee, and others of influence supported Henry's
bill.

>>Many voted against taxes for churches on purely economic grounds (post-war
poverty). Madison's position lost in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Maryland.<<

Madison's position lost in three states where he didn't argue it?  But it won
in nine others where he didn't argue it?  That's a tribute for the power of
the idea, and the unified opinion for religious freedom.

KC:
I don't want to be accused of "denigrating" Madison, but it's silly to say
what you just said. "Madison's position" was not held by Madison alone. In
fact, all Reconstructionists agree with Madison on this issue (though they
favor Patrick Henry's Christian idealism). Many people put forward
"Memorials" against Henry's bill, but the Supreme Court likes Madison's. The
battle of the day was against taxes for churches. The battle is over. Madison
was its general Patton. It did NOT remove religion from Schools.

>> (BTW, I agree that the State should not tax in order to subsidize
preachers. And Madison argue his case on Christian grounds, not
anti-Christian grounds.)<<

It is good that you acknowledge Madison was not anti-Christian.  Now will you
also concede that religious freedom is not anti-Christian?

KC:
By religious freedom, you mean the right for me to move to Delaware if my
religion requires me to take an oath to God and California won't allow me?
Sort of like saying, "Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance was totally
unnecessary; the people of Virginia already had religious freedom -- if they
didn't want to pay the church-taxes they could move to Arkansas!"
Or do you mean, The right to be taxed to support schools which teach the
religion of secular humanism, and the right to have to pay double to build
schools which teach the Bible?
Or do you mean, The right to have the Federal Court tell you what you will
teach your children?
Or maybe, the legal right to commit polygamy, sacrifice your children, and
practice cannibalism, if your "religion" commands it. 
If that's what you mean, then yes, "religious freedom is unchristian." And it
was also unconstitutional for the first 170 years of Constituitonal
government.



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:35 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005edd24-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS said:  >>Christianity even condemned as basic a health care need as
bathing as "sin".  Daily bathing --- which the  ancient Greeks and Romans
practiced --- was not to become the norm again until the early 1900s.

So to say; the time span that Christianity ruled the world stunk, would not
be a stretch by any means.<<

Thanks for ther reminder!  Tyranny and mindless theism always has a
particular aroma to it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Disestablishment
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:35 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ede01-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Winthrop Hudson's college text, *Religion in America* (I've got a 3d edition,
Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1981), says "Philip Schaff was right when he
asserted that the whole question of religious freedom had been settled prior
to the formation of the national government by the previous history of the
American colonies. (Schaff, *Church and State in the United States* (NY
1888)).  Of the original thirteen colonies, four -- Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- had long been fully
 committed to a policy of religious liberty, and the Anglican establishments
in five of the remaining colonies -- New York, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia -- quickly toppled after the outbreak of
hostilities when the supporting prop of English authority was withdrawn.  The
speedy action of New York in repealing all laws or acts which 'may be
construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians'
was typical.  Indeed, the North Carolina Assembly anticipated
 the repudiation of British authority when it refused in 1773 to renew the
Vestry Act, an action which had the practical effect of bringing the
establishment there to an end.  Only in Virginia, and in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, was there delay; and even in these four
arease the struggle for religious liberty was carried on during the war years
as part of the revolutionary struggle itself.  In Virginia, as early as June
12, 1776, an effort was made to forestall the popular tide and to
 preserve some remnant of the establishment by adopting a 'Declaration of
Rights' which asserted that 'all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion.'"

KC:
THere you go, Ed, "denigrating" Madison's efforts again.
This is a libertarian anti-tax issue. This is an issue concerning government
taxation to support an ecclesiastical denomination. There isn't a religious
right wacko inthe country who disagrees with this change. There is no logic
or law which forces us to move from disestablishing a particular denomination
(allowing religious freedom for Baptists vis-a-vis Anglicans) to the total
disestablishment of Christianity (allowing religious freedom for polygamists
and cannibals). That's NOT what history shows,
 that's what secularhumanists dream of: freedom from God.



Subject: Re:Not even 'so help me
God?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:41 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ee88b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said:  >>It is well-honored tradition in America that when one takes
an oath required by government, one may add "so help me God," as Washington
did to the oath at his inauguration.  California doesn't honor this?  This
addition is not acceptable to Kevin?  What gives?<<

KC replied:
>>The Supreme Court, in its anti-Christian hostility, has declared that that
phrase signifies that I am not a Christian. 

Why do you suppose that Madelyn Murray and other atheists have not challenged
this phrase of the oath, and the "in God we trust" on coins, and in pledge of
allegiance? Answer: they have. But they "lost." It would have been political
suicide for the Court to say "In God We Trust" must come off our coins
because it is unconstitutional, but plainly, by the "logic" of contemporary
FirstAmendment jurisprudence, those phrase are unconstitutional. So how did
the court get around this? The answer is on my web
 page:<<

The reason Murray-O'Hare hasn't challenged this part of the oath is that it
doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Ergo, there is nothing to challenge.
However, with only two exceptions I can think of, all presidents have
followed Washington's tradition, approved by Madison as I understand it, of
adding the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath.  

What obtuseness leads you to say the Supreme Court says this phrase means you
are not a Christian?  For the sake of argument, what if the Court did say so?
Would that make it less meaningful to you?

This doesn't make sense, Kevin.  On the one hand you may insert the phrase --
you don't deny that, do you?  On the other hand, you claim the Supremes have
changed the meaning of the phrase.  How?  They don't control the
dictionaries.

The phrase on the coins is innocuous, the courts say.  No skin off anybody's
nose.  Allowing the phrase "so help me God" shows tolerance of religious
freedom, the Court says.  

I do not see a problem.

Ed



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:42 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ee999-at-3469db67@aol.com>

The Holy Trinity case HELD that a certain labor law could not be
interpreted to exlude the importation of a Christian Clergyman.

The Macintosh (c. 1931) case HELD that a certain immigration law COULD be
interpreted to exclude the naturalization of a Christian Clergyman.

What was the difference between these two cases?

Indisputably, the difference was secularization. The Holy Trinity Court said
BECAUSE this is a Christian nation, laws cannot be interpreted like the
government was trying to interpret it.

Macintosh said, BECAUSE the State and its security is more important than
God, christians can be excluded. I may be reading Macintosh in a bad light,
but I am not exagerrating HolyTrinity's holding. The whole PREMISE of
HolyTrinity's decision was that this was a CHRISTIAN NATION.

That opinion could not be written today, and it is not because the
Constituion has changed, only because the Court's agenda has changed.

Now, as to Brewer's prostitution case. I *assume* that you do not have a copy
of that case and that you are relying on some secondary source. Does your
secondary source have a citation for that case. I've given you cites when you
ask; could you please give me this one? (Not that I don't believe the case
exists, BTW, just would like to read it.)



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:48 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ef0f2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Not only is that the express holding of the court,<<

ED:
If it is the "express holding of the Court," why do all references to the
case disagree?  You can list the holdings if you care to.  That the U.S. is a
christian nation is not among them.

You have better access to West than I -- why don't you list the holdings West
supplies?

KC:
Because this is not the best evidence. You would criticize Barton if he
relied on West. Read the case, that's all I can say. It is not hard to
understand, even someone who's not a lawyer can understand it: a majority of
the US Sup Ct signed onto an opinion which said that a law cannot be
interpreted adversely to Christians because "this is a Christian nation." No
concurring opinions, dissenting in part. It shatters the entire illusion of
secular American foisted upon us by the current Court.



Subject: Re:Not even 'so help me
God?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005efda4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776       

I said:  >>It is well-honored tradition in America that when one takes an
oath required by government, one may add "so help me God," as Washington did
to the oath at his inauguration.  California doesn't honor this?  This
addition is not acceptable to Kevin?  What gives?<<

KC replied:
>>The Supreme Court, in its anti-Christian hostility, has declared that that
phrase signifies that I am not a Christian. 

Why do you suppose that Madelyn Murray and other atheists have not challenged
this phrase of the oath, and the "in God we trust" on coins, and in pledge of
allegiance? Answer: they have. But they "lost." It would have been political
suicide for the Court to say "In God We Trust" must come off our coins
because it is unconstitutional, but plainly, by the "logic" of contemporary
FirstAmendment jurisprudence, those phrase are unconstitutional. So how did
the court get around this? The answer is on my web
 page:<<

The reason Murray-O'Hare hasn't challenged this part of the oath is that it
doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Ergo, there is nothing to challenge.  

KC:
You're not listening, Ed. She DID CHALLENGE those laws. Read what I wrote.

ED:
What obtuseness leads you to say the Supreme Court says this phrase means you
are not a Christian?  

KC: I explained this in my post.
The court said this phrase is not an "establishment of religion" (which its
own logic would dictate) because the phrase had nothing to do with the God of
Christianity (which MMO'Hair thought it did). It is an example of "ceremonial
deism," said thecourt. But back when the Court acknowledged that America was
a Christian nation, it also acknowledged thatDeism ws a form a "infidelity,"
or unbelief. 
So the court says, "We want yo to take an oath before you can become a
lawyer." I say, "Fine, I have nothing against oaths. I blieve the same thing
about oaths that the FOunders believed." The court says, "Say the following
____________" but then adds ina footnote, that those words REALLY mean "I am
not a Christian." So I refuse to say those words. Simple.

ED:
For the sake of argument, what if the Court did say so?  Would that make it
less meaningful to you? 

KC:
Less meaningful? It makes it MORE meaningful, but its the WRONG meaning! The
Delaware oath had the RIGHT meaning.

ED:
This doesn't make sense, Kevin.  On the one hand you may insert the phrase --
you don't deny that, do you?  On the other hand, you claim the Supremes have
changed the meaning of the phrase.  How?  They don't control the
dictionaries. 

KC: 
If the Court defines the meaning of a word in a statute, that is its legal
meaning.






Subject: Re:First Amendment
reasons
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 18:58 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005efea3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>KC:
It's impossible to read too many Supreme Court decisions and then fairly read
Madison. 
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a legislature passes a completely secular
bill, but was motivated by religious motivations, the bill is
unconstitutional. Madison's bill would have been ruled unconstitutional by
the anti-Christian post-Everson Court. In the *Memorial,* Madison defines
"religion" in terms quite unlike the modern Supreme Court, calling it "the
duty which we owe our Creator" He builds his argument against taxation upon
thoroughly un-pluralistic, Christian premises: <<

Are you referring to the Alabama "Moment of Silence" bill?  Let's get the
facts straight, first, shall we?

Alabama required a moment of silence for kids to collect their thoughts at
the opening of the school day.  There was a bit of research -- not a lot --
showing that pausing to reflect helps performance (there's a lot of research
now, but it's after the fact; the stuff then was valid).  

In a fit of Christian pique, the Alabama legislature decided to amend the
law.  Instead of just requiring a moment of silence during which kids could
pray if they wanted to, the legislature amended to purpose clause of the bill
to make it clear that the moment of silence was an attempt to find a
loophole, and would have to do until they could figure out a way to make it
legal to horsewhip kids who wouldn't pray.  

In other words, Alabama's genius legislators said that the moment of silence
was really prayer, just by another name.

In the courts, it was politely pointed out to the Alabamans ("Where the
Tuscaloosa!"  -- G. Marx) that laws to promote religion violate the rights of
citizens.  The Court then politely ordered the Alabama government to quit
violating the religious freedom of individual citizens.  

Meanwhile, Georgia looked at the research, decided that a moment of silence
was a good idea.  The Georgia legislature passed a law allowing schools to
have a moment of silence to start the academic day.  That law was challenged
in court as an illegal establishment of religion.  The Supremes let stand a
lower court ruling that said the Georgia law was fine.  Georgia's legislators
said they wanted to promote academic excellence.

So Georgia kids get a legal moment of silence, during which they may exercise
their religious freedom if they choose.  Alabama students don't get that same
opportunity, because the Alabama legislature insisted that the kids BETTER
pray during that time. 

It's a subtle difference that I suspect Kevin won't like.  But it means that
your religious exercise will be tolerated so long as it doesn't hit the other
guy's nose.  

You got no right to swing your religion so close to my nose, Kevin.  Plain
and simple.

Ed



Subject: Re:Religion and schools
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:07 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f06fd-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>I make it clear on my web site that I favor the complete
"separation of school and state." Eliminate public schools altogether.<<

I responded:  >>Jefferson and Madison warned that latter-day inquisitors
would be able to flourish, imposing religious tyranny, without the protection
of an educated public secured by public education.  

Those guys were prophets!<<

Kevin responded:  >>They sure were. As were the rest of the Founders. It was
you, Ed, who mentioned the "Old Deluder Satan Acts," which expressed the
concern of the early Americans to build schools to make sure that people
could not be deceived by Satan. Why is it secular, gov't schools are so
woefully inadequate at educating people? Is it just a coincidence that
uneducated people pose less of a threat to the government?<<

Watch who you call inadequate, will you?  This public school-educated
National Merit Scholar with two kids in the Gifted program in public schools
begs to differ with you.

The intention of the congregationalists in the "Old Deluder Satan" bill was
quite clear:  To teach kids to read.  They reasoned that IF they could read,
they WOULD read, and read the Bible, and that would prevent them from being
led astray by Papists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans or Baptists.  

Those schools in Massachusetts would probably would be quite legal today even
as public schools -- no opening prayers, heavy emphasis on reading, writing
("ciphering") and arithmetic.  Yes, they were often run by preachers, because
the preachers had been educated  more than most folk, as good preachers were
-- in history, geography, mathematics, etc.  

Jefferson and Horace Mann were quite clear that uneducated masses pose a
greater threat to order, and pose a greater risk of a tyrannical government
in response.  I think your mixing up your history of education in America.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:17 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f1074-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said:  >>No one is taught to murder, steal or rape.<<

Kevin responded:  >>In a country which is universally (albeit vaguely) aware
of the Ten Commandments, a government-coerced universal school system whch
does NOT teach these commandments teaches children that they are an
unimportant part of life. They should be central. <<

I see, now.  You are a cultural snob who believes that there are no morals
outside of Christianity.  That's quite an assertion, and one that you have
not evidenced nor proven (nor will you be able to do so).  What about a
school that doesn't teach that breathing is an important part of life?   Does
that lead to children who can't breathe?

No one questions that morals should be taught.  And in a good school morals
ARE taught:  Kids learn to work hard, they learn that knowledge is good and
fun.  They learn not to cheat to get ahead.  They learn that other people
will treat them well if they treat other people well.  They learn to listen
to people in authority, but not to give up all independence.

Why must we teach any particular cult in order to teach these lessons?  What
difference does it make whether we attribute these morals to Christianity, or
to the older Code of Hammurabi, which also included them?  Or to the
teachings of Confucius, which independently included them?

What's wrong with the churches, and why should the government step in to do
what the churches are failing at?  (if they are failing; my church is fine,
thank you -- sorry about yours, if it's not fine).

>>The Founders were in universal agreement that Biblical law was the
foundation of social order and free government. Secular schools are teaching
that God and Biblical morality can be ignored.<<

You've not provided a single source for this assertion.  Nor will you be able
to find a credible source.  Washington believed studying the Bible was a good
way to gain virtuous ideas -- but he did not support "Biblical law" as a
foundation of social order.  

Secular schools do NOT teach that God or morality can be ignored.  You claim
that is the lesson when Christianity is not preached.  I beg to differ,
noting that schools have taught morality since there were schools, which is
several thousand years before Christianity.  

Christianity is not the only system of morality in the world; but since it is
a religious system, we should maintain an official state neutrality on it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:20 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f1404-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said:  >>The 10 Commandments were not "universally taught" in public
schools under the Constitution;<<

KC: Ridiculous. Preposterous.

ED: there were no public schools to speak of in 1787, 

Kevin responded::>> Oh, I'm sorry. I understand what your argument is. I
amend my remarks to "deceptive," "misleading." There were public resolutions
requiring the teaching of Biblical morality. The government stood committed
to fostering Christian education, and in no way did it attempt to hinder it.
The situation is the exact opposite today.<<

There were not public resolutions requiring the teaching of "Biblical
morality."  There were resolutions and laws that supported education, in the
hopes that people who could read would be moral and good citizens.  The
government fostered education, not religion.  Can't you see the difference
yet?

See the Northwest Ordinance, for example.

Ed




Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f18d6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said::>> The Supreme Court has politely pointed out that the federal
Constituiton and most state constitutions forbid the government from
promoting one religion over another.  <<

Kevin said:>> True, the Court has done this. False, the constituions do not
say this. The federal govt was prohibited from establishing a national
denomination, suchas the Churchof England. This is not an episcopalian
nation, an Anglican nation, a Baptist nation, or a Congregationalist nation,
but it was founded as a Christian nation, and the Constituiton did not alter
this, according to the early Supreme Court. <<

The First Amendment not only prohibits the establishment of a national
church, it also secures individual liberty of individual citizens against ANY
establishment of religion.  As Ketcham noted in the excerpt I posted earlier,
Madison went whole hog on religious freedom.  

There were attempts to amend what became the First Amendment to restrict it
to preventing a national establishment -- but Madison was able to fend those
attempts off (three of them, if memory serves).  To claim now that those
amendments were somehow successful, when the voting shows otherwise, or to
claim now that the language supported those unsuccessful amendments all along
is a peculiar exercise in self-deception.

The Supreme Court never said the U.S. was founded as a "Christian" nation, or
any other kind of religion.  We've already gone over that.

Ed



Subject: Quotes:  Accurate?
Real?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:26 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f1bc1-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>KC:
Are you talking about John Adams:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred
as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and
"Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made
inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

Or John Quincy Adams:
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and
religious code. . . laws essential to the existence of men in society and
most of which have been enacted by every nation whch ever professed any code
of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane
antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for
morality as this decalogue lays down.<<


Are you claiming these fellows actually said these things?  Then surely you
can tell us where, in their voluminous papers, we might find them.

They have not the ring of truth to them.  (Though they may be true; let's get
the citation and the context)

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:28 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f1d6e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Are you calling the Founders members of a "christianized
cult?"<<

They didn't call for the posting of religious tracts on the walls of
schoolrooms.  They don't qualify.

Ed



Subject: Re:Religion and schools
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 19:46 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f39da-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC>>>Why is it secular, gov't schools are so woefully inadequate at
educating people? Is it just a coincidence that uneducated people pose less
of a threat to the government?<<<

Now this is the biggest pile of excrement offered by our friend yet.  Just
how is it that test scores from Japan, Norway, Sweden, Germany and many other
"secular" countries surpass ours?  To infer that religion is a precursor to
good education is more than a mistaken belief.  It is an outright lie.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:11 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f5e9e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<< It is a lie to say Barton has been proven "unreliable."

I will continue to use his book on this board.>>>

And you will continue to be WRONG!



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Indians
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:15 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f69ef-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:
I don't know about that, but he was Latino, a member of one of those South
American peoples "oppressed" by Christopher ("Christ-bearer") Columbus and
the Christian West. That was the point of the thread.

I see,.... so EVERY "Latino" (considered a derogatory by many friends of
mine) is of Aztec origin, your bigotry is showing KC!



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:17 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f6c28-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Wolfsong:
Where does the Bible mention the practice of law in California, and what oath
you should swear?

KC:
The Bible sets down rules concerning swearing an oath. Those rules were
followed by those who drafted the Delaware Constitution. I want to follow
those rules. The State of California will not let me.


WOW, following outdated and struck down Delaware Law in California????? Where
did you get your law degree, Bob's Law School?



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:21 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f710d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

"The whole history of this nation." Most secularists are utterly
ignorant of the "whole history" of this nation, especially when it comes to
the influence of Christianity upon it.

.......(snipped for brevity)

 One  study found a total of forty executions in the colonies,
before 1660.  The figure is perhaps a bit understated; but  it does not
suggest wholesale carnage.  There were fifteen executions in
Massachusetts in the period; four for murder, two for infanticide, two for
adultery, two for witchcraft, one for "buggery";
four Quakers were also put to death.">>>

Last time I checked, this wasn't a nation until July 4, 1776, a fact EVERY
third grader knows!!!



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:32 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f7f61-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<< Please give us the case.  This one I gotta read for myself. >>>

He won't be able to comply with your request Ed. It doesn't exist!



Subject: Re:Not even 'so help me
God?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f8b46-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I wondered:  >>What obtuseness leads you to say the Supreme Court says
this phrase means you are not a Christian?  

Kevin said:  >> I explained this in my post.
The court said this phrase is not an "establishment of religion" (which its
own logic would dictate) because the phrase had nothing to do with the God of
Christianity (which MMO'Hair thought it did). It is an example of "ceremonial
deism," said thecourt. But back when the Court acknowledged that America was
a Christian nation, it also acknowledged thatDeism ws a form a "infidelity,"
or unbelief. 
So the court says, "We want yo to take an oath before you can become a
lawyer." I say, "Fine, I have nothing against oaths. I blieve the same thing
about oaths that the FOunders believed." The court says, "Say the following
____________" but then adds ina footnote, that those words REALLY mean "I am
not a Christian." So I refuse to say those words. Simple.<<

Kevin, the Court will also tell you that "an establishment of religion" is a
state endorsement of the religion.  Do you mean to say that you will only
take an oath if the state agrees to adopt your own brand of "miserable
superstition?"  Do you really mean that you will not swear to uphold the laws
of a nation that pledges to defend your rights to believe as you do?

This gets crazier the more I know about it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible bill
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:49 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f9385-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<< Last weekend I had fun answering all the posts on this Board. This
may be my last weekend. >>>

Giving up so soon? I guess you didn't have anything to back you up just like
all the other Christian Nationalist Reconstructionist Historical Revisionists
that have tried in the past!



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 20:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005f995b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said, of Holy Trinity, and whether the reporters say it holds any
religious water:  >>Because this is not the best evidence. You would
criticize Barton if he relied on West. Read the case, that's all I can say.
It is not hard to understand, even someone who's not a lawyer can understand
it: a majority of the US Sup Ct signed onto an opinion which said that a law
cannot be interpreted adversely to Christians because "this is a Christian
nation." No concurring opinions, dissenting in part. It
 shatters the entire illusion of secular American foisted upon us by the
current Court.<<

I've read the case probably a hundred times in the last 20 years, and it
never changes (though I admit my understanding increases from time to time).
The holdings remain the same, just as the Supreme Court's clerk listed them
in 1892.  And saying the U.S. is a christian nation is NOT one of the
holdings.  The Court held that it's not required to think Congress hostile to
Christianity, in one of five or six issues decided.

And in those purple prose passages in which he cites the wacko cases of
Ruggles and Updegraph, Brewer goes around the bend.  As I noted in earlier
posts, his opinion is wrong on the history (and Ruggles and Updegraph are
oddball cases, too -- bad precedent in the states from which they came).  Bad
legal scholarship.

Which is why even Rehnquist noted that the Holy Trinity case does not "hold"
that the U.S. is a christian nation . . .

Ed



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 21:09 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005fa9e4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Now, as to Brewer's prostitution case. I *assume* that
you do not have a copy of that case and that you are relying on some
secondary source. Does your secondary source have a citation for that case.
I've given you cites when you ask; could you please give me this one? (Not
that I don't believe the case exists, BTW, just would like to read it.)<<

It's a zoning case, not prostitution.  Yes I've read it.  L'Hote v. City of
New Orleans.  

The good stuff is in the earlier pleadings, however.  And I've not had a copy
of those for some years.  You might find the lower court rulings useful,
though.  And L'Hote is pronounced "la HOYT," should you find yourself in a
library asking for the case.  I'll get a better cite for you .  I think it
was decided in the 1897 term, but it may be 1896.

New Orleans zoned an area of the town for houses of prostitution.  The area
included a Methodist church, and they sued.  The Methodists argued that
surely in a Christian nation such as the one Brewer had mentioned in Holy
Trinity, it could not be legal to zone an area with a Christian church for
houses of prostitution.

Again the decision was unanimous.  Again Brewer wrote it.  But he mentions
the Christian nation argument not at all.  And, they held that it was well
within the police powers to zone an area for houses of prostitution.  

There is a new bio of Brewer coming, late this year I think.

If you get to a library, you'll find L'Hote indexed in the Supreme Court
Reports under "prostitution" and "zoning."

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 21:39 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005fcca5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Witchward:>>>Where did you get your law degree, Bob's Law School?<<<

No silly, it was "Billy Bob's lauw scool and chikin farm."  A subsidiary of
Jerry Fallwel's Liberty University.  = )

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Holy Trinity v.
MacIntosh
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 21:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005fd18d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>The Holy Trinity case HELD that a certain labor law
could not be interpreted to exlude the importation of a Christian Clergyman.
The Macintosh (c. 1931) case HELD that a certain immigration law COULD be
interpreted to exclude the naturalization of a Christian Clergyman.

What was the difference between these two cases?<<

In the first case the Court had to bend the law to allow a white collar
worker to stay who was clearly not allowed under the law.  In the second
case, the court determined that the war power did not exist in an individual
citizen, and that the U.S. didn't have to allow anyone to be a citizen who
wouldn't pledge to serve the country in time of war.  It helped the case
considerably that MacIntosh refused the oath, instead of just suing for the
appropriateness of it.  He may have been a good dean of the
 divinity school, but he offended people who still remembered WWI.

>>Indisputably, the difference was secularization. The Holy Trinity Court
said BECAUSE this is a Christian nation, laws cannot be interpreted like the
government was trying to interpret it.

Macintosh said, BECAUSE the State and its security is more important than
God, christians can be excluded. I may be reading Macintosh in a bad light,
but I am not exagerrating HolyTrinity's holding. The whole PREMISE of
HolyTrinity's decision was that this was a CHRISTIAN NATION.<<

No, the Court said that citizens can't pick and choose which laws they like,
even with religious justification.  Had MacIntosh merely said he would be a
conscientious objector, he likely would have got a different result.  What he
said was that he would reserve judgment on the justness of the war before
agreeing to serve the country.  

The two cases are readily distinguishable.

>>That opinion could not be written today, and it is not because the
Constituion has changed, only because the Court's agenda has changed.<<

I don't think the Supreme Court has an "agenda."  I think that in one case
the Court bent over backwards for a white, English speaking minister in an
era of immigration issues (see the next 10 cases in the reporter after Holy
Trinity), and in the other case the Court didn't see any reason to extend the
privileges of citizenship to a guy who was so wishy-washy about whether he'd
support the nation in time of war.  

Do you think that, as a religious matter, we should grant citizenship to
anyone who claims that they want all the benefits but have a religious reason
why they can't serve in wartime?  What kind of policy is that?

Ed



Subject: Re:Disestablishment
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 21:53 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005fe230-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said, in response to my citing from Hudson's religious history:
>>There is no logic or law which forces us to move from disestablishing a
particular denomination (allowing religious freedom for Baptists vis-a-vis
Anglicans) to the total disestablishment of Christianity (allowing religious
freedom for polygamists and cannibals). That's NOT what history shows, that's
what secularhumanists dream of: freedom from God.<<

I'm not claiming freedom from God.  But Hudson says, and Ketcham agress in
his bio of Madison, and Malone agrees in his Pulitzer Prize-winning,
six-volume bio of Jefferson, that these guys did indeed disestablish
Christianity.  Not just keeping one denomination from dominating, but making
belief safe for all -- though action, as you note in polygamy, may be reached
by law.  CorumB posted the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson, and
the notes from Jefferson's autobiography, in which they
 discussed this exact point, saying that religious freedom was for all,
including the "Hindoo," the "Mohametn," and "infidels of all faiths."  

That may be freedom from God for the atheist.  But that's fine.  As Jefferson
said, what harm is it to you if your neighbor believes in one god, or twenty?
Or none?

Freedom of religion is not the same as a world without God.  I understand why
you might fear the latter -- your ability to have God in your life is
protected by religious freedom, not endangered by it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Unanimous?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 22:09 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ff37a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>WHOSE history: the US Supreme Court's revisionist
version?<<

No.  I am unaware that the Court has ever addressed this bill.  How about
just reading the statute itself -- it's long, and self-explanatory.  Do you
need a copy?

>>Keep in mind that along with the Va statute Jeff and Madison submitted
other bills, including bills "Saving the Property of the Church," "Appointing
Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving," and "Annulling Marriages Prohibited
by the Levitical Law," -- all of which would by patently "unconstitutional"
by the Court's current revisionist jurisprudence.<<

And keep in mind that this was all done in the rapid reformation of the laws,
and that at almost every turn Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others
disestablished, and chose religious freedom instead.  "Saving the Property of
the Church" was an attempt to settle the difficult issue of what to do with
vestry glebe lands, an issue only necessary if the church was to be wholly
disestablished and the state to have jurisdiction.  The marriage laws were
necessary for public order -- and I note that marriage is
 another of those areas where federal law is almost completely silent.  This
has been a state issue since before the Constitution.

I'm surprised you don't mention the Blasphemy and Heresy laws that Jefferson
wrote.  Or have I already explained that by passing statutes on these issues,
the jurisdiction was removed from local clergy, and left with the state.
Jefferson gutted the civil control of the church by the simple matter of
obliterating common law jurisdiction, which was accomplished by passing laws
that said the state would do the enforcing.  How many prosecutions for
blasphemy after the state took over?  Zero.  By the state's
 standards, religious freedom stood tall.

It was an enormous project, and exciting times.  Jefferson invented a
democratic republic government.  For that we should all rejoice.  Instead,
you crab because he didn't start the American Inquisition and torch Servetus
himself.

>>The Church of England was the Established Church in Virginia, even though
Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc, were more numerous. The
"separation of church and state" only meant the disestablishment of
Anglicanism, not Christianity in general, as the other bills submitted along
with the Statute for Religious Freedom unquestionably proves.<<

We've already posted the words of the men who did it.  They said their intent
was just as the law reads, to create religious freedom for all.  Considering
the rolling history of these bills, covering more than a decade, the trend is
quite clear -- get the church out of government, get the government out of
the way of free religious exercise.  

And that is the same model we see in the U.S. Constitution.  Article VI bans
religious meddling in government.  Amendment 1 bans government meddling in
religion.

It is all of a piece, one long and glorious march to religious freedom.  Some
stumbled along the way, but they got up and rejoined the march.

Why would anyone aspire to be a pothole in that road?

Ed



Subject: Re:Unanimous?
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 22:16 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-005ffa9f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>New Jersey, North Carolina, and Delaware had guaranteed
equal denominational protection well  before the VA Statute, so Jeff and
Madison were not exactly trailblazers.<<

You forget Roger Williams, who coined the phrase "wall of separation" long
before -- by creating a haven for religious freedom in Rhode Island.  The
issue isn't who was first.

>>The Supreme Court likes Jefferson because he is hostile to miracles and
"fundamentalistic" Christianity.<<

No.  The Court used Jefferson's phrase because Jefferson's great quest for
freedom, which included writing the Declaration of Independence, created the
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and he included his good friend James
Madison, and between them they wrote freedom into religion, speech, assembly,
petitioning the government and more.  The heritage of the First Amendment is
clear, despite Barton's and others' efforts to revise history.

Jefferson, as at least a grandfather of the First, wrote that letter to the
Danbury Baptists that included Williams' phrase "a wall of separation."  When
he did that, he said in his memoirs, he intended to give the letter the stamp
of federal policy.  To that end he reviewed it with his attorney general, who
checked it out to make sure it would make a legal precedent.

The Court went back to Jefferson because they go to the horse's mouth
whenever possible, and Jefferson was one talkative horse.  You would have
them visit the other end?

>> Their efforts in Virginia were NOT the primary influence in shaping the
First Amendment.<<

Cheap revisionism.  See the history books, or the excerpts posted here today.

>> The current anti-Christian post-Everson Court is simply trying to create a
new history of the nation, a history that repudiates the reality sketched by
the Holy Trinity Court.<<

Holy Trinity was an abominable aberration.  Your view of the current  court,
trying to lump them with the Warren and Burger courts, is funny -- but dead
wrong.

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 1997 23:48 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006069e9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed writes:

<<Jefferson spent the years of the Revolutionary War in Virginia, serving as
legislator and governor.  He, George Mason and Madison, and others, were
appointed to the committee to rewrite all the laws that needed rewriting for
an independent nation.  Jefferson details this blueprint for government in
"Notes on Virginia."  Additionally, Jefferson authored the bulk of what was
put forward at the Constitutional Convention as the "Virginia Plan."  His pen
was there, even if Jefferson was overseas.
  Jefferson's work of authoring was done -- what remained was for a
legislative genius like Madison to get everyone else to agree.  See also the
intense correspondence between Madison and Jefferson during the convention --
as posted by CorumB above on this board.>>

yes!  thank you both.  Actually, if you look back carefully, it may be that
George Mason was more an architect of the Constitution in many ways than was
even Jefferson.  Mason appears to have come up with many of the conceptual
constructs that Jefferson (and to a lesser extent Madison) put into much more
poetic language.

Jim..




Subject: I goofed -- apologies
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 12:50 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00611dc6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

In a post yesterday I said:  >>In point of fact some states banned
Bibles in schools under their own laws.  The Illinois Supreme Court got a
case in 1911, and determined that the state constitution prohibited coerced
school prayers.<<

That should have read "some states banned PRAYERS in schools," not "Bibles"
-- and while I'm getting accurate with the Lord, let me note that I'm talking
about corporate prayer, not private prayer.

Private prayers of school kids are legal everywhere all the time.

Ed



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:06 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006120ff-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>There has been a trend toward secular paganism and away
from Puritan casuistry, that's undeniable. The question is a legal one: did
the Federal Constitution prohibit Delaware's Theocratic oath. The answer is
No. Did the Federal Constitution prohibit prayer and Bible reading in
schools. No. Not until 1961-63 was it (arbitrarily) decided thus by the
SupCt.<<

Religious freedom in America blossomed to the point that more Americans
worship weekly than in any country with an established church, Christian or
otherwise -- Christianity in America is stronger than in any other nation,
and one of the country's biggest exports.  This blossoming of religious
freedom and enterprise Kevin tartly dismisses as "pagan secularism."  The
various mission boards and evangelistic arms of Christian faiths might follow
the sentiments of Kevin's favorite orator, Patrick Henry, and
 say, "If this be pagan secularism, Praise God and make the most of it!"

The legal question was moot.  The Federal Constitution didn't need to do
anything to Delaware's oath for two reasons:  Delaware didn't live by that
law, and Delaware abolished the underpinning authority when it made religion
free.  The question is a moral one:  Can any religion stand that must bring
people to it by chaining their free will?

Corporate school prayer in public schools has been against the laws of
religious freedom in most of what would become the U.S. since 1777.  The
federal Constitution made it illegal (as a violation of the establishment
clause) in 1791.  Because we tolerate a broad range of religious practice,
did we jail violators, ever?  No.  Should we continue the practice when it is
found out?  No.  Was this a major change in any state?  Few.  Is there any
evidence that even half the public schools in America had
 prayers and/or Bible readings which kids were forced to attend?  In the
McCarthy era, one poll suggest that almost half the schools in America
featured corporate or coerced prayers (1955 if I have the year correct) -- a
high water mark.  What happened to those kids brought up with the pure,
Christian religion pulsing in their veins?  They put Haight-Ashbury on the
map, made LSD a recreational pastime, gave up 50,000 lives in Vietnam, bought
millions of Beatles records which prompted John Lennon to
 accurately observe that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, marched
for civil rights, came of age during Nixon's wage and price freeze, put their
kids in Cub Scouts, and stopped going to church on Sundays.  There's probably
a moral in there somewhere, but it's not worth chasing down.

Was school prayer so pervasive and universally loved?  No evidence of it.
Why did the Court wait until 1962 to hear a case -- doesn't that mean they
agreed?  No.  The Court can't create controversies -- it can only decide
those that come before it (and even then it turns away most of them).  School
prayer, corporate and coerced, was not an issue until after World War II,
when some legislatures and school boards thought it a great way to fight
communism to have prayers.  When this happened, many people
 were offended, and some sued.  The Court had an opportunity to hear several
cases, but picked those that offered the sharpest issues -- lots of people
litigated because they were concerned.

The reason the Court ruled coerced, corporate prayers illegal only in 1962
was that was the first time a case had come before them.  Does that mean that
prayer was legal before?  No.  There never had been a case saying it was o.k.
to force children to pray.

Is forced prayer a heritage that we want to pass on to our children?  Count
me out, please.  Crucifixion didn't seem to dampen the spread of Christianity
-- what evidence have we that it will dampen the spread of any good thought?
None.  Why do it then?

Kevin alleges the Supreme Court decided the prayer cases arbitrarily.  It's
only arbitrary if you consider the First Amendment optional.

Ed



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:13 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612237-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>No ecclesiastical denominations receive government
funds. That was a big issue then, not now. The issue now is, Can the Federal
Government prohibit local governments from having prayer and Bible reading in
their schools. This issue was never even CONTEMPLATED in the revolutionary
period, except by the wildest "freethinkers," who are on record with public
assurances that the new Constitution was not a threat to Christianity. It is
fantasy to say religion in schools was made unconstitutional
 in 1789.<<

If the issue was not contemplated, it was because no one thought that anyone
in their right mind would try to turn public schools into seminaries.  

But the founders were clear that they did not like any OTHER form of coercion
in religion -- they didn't like the mandatory communion laws, mandatory
church attendance laws, mandatory tithe laws, mandatory financial support
laws (even of one's own favorite religion).  If they wouldn't force Anglicans
to pray in Anglican churches, eat at Anglican communion tables, or support
Anglican ministers and edifices, what makes you so sure they would support
forcing anyone of any belief to pray in a school?  

Kevin, you rest your case on a history of school prayer which is mostly
non-existent, and where it existed, wrong.  And you say that because it was
done in the past, we should keep doing it.

Why?  Does it create morality in children?  No evidence it does.  Does it
help the churches?  Seems to hurt them.

Does Jesus tell us to horsewhip the little children to pray?  Odd translation
of the Second Testament.

You claim the government ought to get out of the education business -- but
you want it to get into the religion business instead?

Those who don't know the lessons of John Peter Zenger are condemned to repeat
them.

Ed



Subject: What oath, then?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:18 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612369-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said: >>Oaths requiring religious fealty were on the way out, often
disregarded as they were in Virginia, where even Catholics were elected to
high office despite official bans on the practice.<<

Kevin responded: >>I'm not talking about an oath requiring someone to be an
Anglican. Denominational tests oaths were an issue then, not now.<<

You are asking to take a trinitarian oath.  You want a denominational oath.

The fact that an oath to any kind of a faith is forbidden you step over to
ask for an oath binding you to one sect of a faith?  How is that any less a
religious oath than any other?

The deeper we get into this, the less I see of your case.  California's
legislature certainly has the power to police the ranks of California
attorneys.  They don't ask you to swear fealty to any religion, they don't
prevent you from adding a tag on to God.  

If I had to predict, I'd predict your case is going to get tossed for
non-controversy. 

Ed



Subject: History:  Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:27 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006124b6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED: 
Rarely were they used to bar anyone from office (apart from Jefferson, can
you imagine a deist or atheist WINNING an election?), 

Kevin answered:  >> precisely, which indicates the popular support for
Christian understandings. Jefferson could not have been elected without
Christians being assured he was no threat to their liberties.<<

This would be truly funny, if the ghost of Santayana weren't pacing my study
right now.  

Jefferson was elected despite a blistering attack that he was an atheist.
The voters wanted a republic, not a christian nation.  The voters chose
Jefferson's party over Adams' and Hamilton's party.  The election of 1800
went to the House of Representatives, however, on a Constitutional oddity.
The practice was that electors in the electoral college each had two votes.
They cast them for two different men, and the winner was president, the
second-place guy was vice president.  All of the
 Democratic-Republican electors voted for Thomas Jefferson and his running
mate, Aaron Burr (a colossal mistake picking Burr, Tom).  Consequently, it
was a tie.  Ties to the House of Representatives, where it deadlocked for
weeks.  The country was on the brink of shattering when Alexander Hamilton
made a plea to Federalist partisans to hold their noses and vote for
Jefferson.

Jefferson won because he was better than Burr, not because he gave assurances
to Christians that he wouldn't bother them.  By the second term, Americans
came to like the idea of keeping the republic.  By the end of the second term
they so liked the idea they took Jefferson's friend, Madison -- and after a
nasty war and two terms of Madison, they still liked it so well they took two
doses of Jefferson's protege and Madison's friend, Monroe.  And after 24
years of Democratic presidency, the dream of
 America was assured.

It was a republican dream, not a christian dream.

Ed




Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:31 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612514-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said, of oaths requiring office holders to swear to some form of
Christianity: >>To the extent these oaths require allegiance to God, they are
relics -- dead in spirit by 1787, if not dead by law earlier.  <<

Kevin said:  >>Sheer fabrication! I have cited authorities who declare the
universal understanding of oaths to be religious solemnities. Cite some
evidence that oaths were not viewed as allegiance to God. Show us something
to lead us to believe that the legal instruments drafted in that day were
intended to codify this understanding of oaths. Wild imagination. Secular
dreaming.<<

Religious solemnities for religious people, pledges to uphold a contract for
the government.  Oaths, as you know from your detailed studies, Kevin, took
the place of "documents under seal."  For example, few of the men on the
Mayflower had a personal seal, so they could not put their seal on a secular
contract to abide by the laws of the group.  Instead, they all swore flowery
oaths, contained in the Mayflower Compact itself.  You say religion; the law
says contract. 

You do remember contracts?

Ed



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:39 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006127ad-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I urged some common sense and reading of real history: >>If you consult
professional historians, and good histories, you will find a strong trend to
religious freedom in all of America.  Greater toleration allowed greater
cooperation in fighting the British, and later in commerce and trade.  Though
you can find momentary lapses, by and large the rules that allowed the death
penalty for heresy were not honored, nor did anyone expect such harshness.
<<

Kevin said:  >>In a Godly society, just because no one is executed for murder
doesn't mean no one takes the law against murder seriously. It means they DO
take it seriously and don't murder. This is the point of such laws, as I
documented in an earlier post.<<

Except that Jefferson noted in "Notes on Virginia" that the capital penalty
for blasphemy was not taken seriously.  He wrote that the people of Virginia
would not tolerate such an execution.  Laws that are widely disobeyed, and
unpopular, may need changing.

Tell you what:  You announce that you want to set up a theocracy and start
executing blasphemers and heretics, and make sure you define blasphemy
clearly.  Let's see how wildly the crowd cheers.  Is it safe to assume we'll
still be hanging Baptists and Quakers?  Mennonites?  Mormons still going to
be gunned down?  And those are just a few of the Christian groups -- what
about Moslems, who will be the second largest family of faith in America by
the turn of the century?  You going to tell them about your
 plans to execute "blasphemers?"

Blasphemy laws are the first refuge of tyrants, and always have been.  Their
injustice should be clear.  Christianity's greatest exponents were executed
for blasphemy.

I've often wondered why any Christian would want to bring such tyranny back
-- do they want to give Christ the same greeting he got the first time?

Gotta go.  Santayana's ghost is moaning and must make it be quiet.

Ed



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:48 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061293c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said of few blasphemy and heresy prosecutions in colonial
America:  >>Again, no prosecutions does not mean the law is not respected.
Respect for law means obedience to the law. If, however, you show that there
was rampant heresy, you have shown that there was rampant lawlessness. My
point was that THIS WAS THE LAW, that the law was Christian, which you
previously denied, and now admit, at the cost of the integrity of those who
did not keep their oaths to uphold the law.

This is also an example of elites who subvert the will of the majority.<<

Freedom of religion writer Leonard Levy, in his book *Blasphemy*, notes that
everyone but clergy thought the laws a crock.

Kevin, you miss the point.  By Massachusetts standards, Baptists were
self-convicted heretics.  The Massachusetts guys thought it mercy to let them
live with a hot poker hole in their tongues -- execution for third offense.

It's not elites subverting the majority, unless you manage somehow to bring
back those tyrannical laws.

The point is that colonial Americans saw a chance to leave behind the
religious strife that plagued Europe -- still plagues Europe, and Africa, and
Asia -- and build a better system.  New Israel, they called it.  A land where
a man might be free to farm and raise a family.  And with that dream
threatened by sectarian laws, they chose the dream over the laws.

It was a good dream, it still is.  They made the right choice, no matter how
much you regret it.  

What makes you think that your current drive for an oath wouldn't be ruled
heretical?  What makes you think you'd be safe against a blasphemy law?  You
yourself rail against what you call a religion of secularism.  Think hard now
-- who would be the heretic if that were the religion?  

Religious freedom is a grand gift.  Even for those who don't appreciate it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Maritime theocracy?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:49 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612981-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>ALl of your many questions, "what does the Bible say to
do when X happens," is a field of law called "casuistry." the first 200 years
of American legal history is full of this activity. Criminal codes were
annotated with Bible references to reflect the work of legal authorities
combing scripture for guidance on how to craft the laws. All of these
situations have been worked out. See Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law
for more data.<<

Rushdooney is full of thunder, but little light.

He overstates and misstates the influence of scripture.  Read the laws and
the legislative journals instead.  You'll get a better, more accurate
picture.

Ed



Subject: Re:Maritime theocracy?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:51 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612a15-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>ED;
If you can provide any citation from any workers compensation law in the U.S.
which suggests it is based in any way on Biblical law or scripture, I shall
be amazed.

KC:
Luke 16:31  And He said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.<<<<

I am not amazed.  But then this scripture doesn't fill the bill, does it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Maritime theocracy?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612ab3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said, of workers comp in the Bible:>>Worse, under the verse you cite,
there is solid economic advantage in killing the fellow you injure, instead
of letting him live to be a burden on you.

Kevin said: >>That is certainly a danger in a secular humanist society, where
materialism is rampant, and money is more important that people. Christianity
provides the foundation for a just and compassionate society, as the Founders
understood.<<

No, it's a danger in a system that forces a fellow to pay a tort only if the
victim survives.  American tort law is not based much on the Bible --
eye-for-eye was difficult to enforce.  And dumb.

Most of the laws we use today are not based on Christianity.

Ed




Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 05:56 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00612af2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Why should I bother citing books; you won't read them.
You're living in a dream world.<<

The books you cite are from the Wallbuilders, crocks by David Barton and his
colleagues.  

I've read them.  They are to history as a car horn is to music.

Why don't you read outside them?  All that honking could make one deaf.

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 07:32 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00615523-at-3469db67@aol.com>

All this uproar about prayer in schools is hysterical.  I went to
Catholic schools ( a long time ago) and we prayed all the time.  We prayed at
least 10 times a day.  We prayed for everything from world peace to victory
in a football game.  We prayed for better weather, for John Kennedy, for the
Pope, for better grades-------- you name it-- we prayed for it.   Hay gang--
it was a worthless exercise.  It was simply something you did out of habit.
Nobody thought about it, nobody gave it any meaning,
 nobody did anything except go through the motions.  It had no more
significance than brushing your teeth in the morning, leaving a building or
going to the jon.  You just did it.



Subject: de Tocqueville
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 08:14 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00616d00-at-3469db67@aol.com>

CorumB> Kevin Craig repeatedly asserts that separation of church and
state is a myth:

   KC>> The Supreme Court is re-writing history. The "separation of church
and state" is a myth.<<

   KC>> There is absolutely no basis -- except in the fertile imagination of
the Supreme Court -- to believe that this understanding of the oath as a
religious solemnity was overthrown by the US Constitution. Thus, the idea
that religion must be separated from the State is a myth.<<

CorumB>  Kevin subsequently quotes de Tocqueville.  Alexis de Tocqueville was
from France, and wrote his book after an extended tour of the United States.
His book was widely read, and translated into several languages and published
under various titles. Here's a quote as Kevin posted it:

   >>KC: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE: "Upon my arrival in the United States, the
religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention;
and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political
consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was
unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and
the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other;
but in America I found that they were intimately united, and
 that they reigned in common over the same country. p.337 <<

CorumB>  Kevin provides the original source and its page number, but implies
that he copied it from Barton's _Original Intent_ (Kevin stated>> Want
zillions more quotes? See Barton, Original Intent, ch 17, and pp. 165-172 or
thereabouts.<<).   Read the the FULL paragraph of the passage from de
Tocqueville, to see what Barton and/or Kevin omitted: 

  "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was
the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the
more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new
state of things.  In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion
and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.  But in America I
found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the
same country.  My desire to discover the causes of
 this phenomenon increased from day to day.  In order to satisfy it I
questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the
society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and
are especially interested in their duration.  As a member of the Roman
Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of
its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted.  To each of these men
I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts.  I found
 that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all
attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the
separation of church and state.  I do not hesitate to affirm that during my
stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the
laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point."
   -- Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_, Vol. I, Phillips Bradley
Edition, from Reeve Text with Bowen's corrections, with introduction by
Daniel J. Boorstin, Vintage Books (a division of Random House, Inc.), NYNY,
p. 308.

Always check the original source. Even when Kevin's quotes are accurate, they
aren't necessarily in context.



Subject: Re:de Tocqueville
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:15 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00619cde-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Bret notes:  >> To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and
explained my doubts.  I found that they differed upon matters of detail
alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in
their country mainly to the separation of church and state.  I do not
hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single
individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on
this point."
   -- Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_, Vol. I, Phillips Bradley
Edition, from Reeve Text with Bowen's corrections, with introduction by
Daniel J. Boorstin, Vintage Books (a division of Random House, Inc.), NYNY,
p. 308.

Always check the original source. Even when Kevin's quotes are accurate, they
aren't necessarily in context.<<


This is my chief complaint about Barton.  Even when he's technically
accurate, he's leading his readers astray.  

Kevin does an admirable job of being dogged on these boards -- can you
imagine what a force for good would be created if there were actual knowledge
and understanding behind such doggedness?

For some reason Barton admirers never go to the primary sources.  I am not
sure if this is because they are so rapt with Barton they cannot see, or they
are congenitally blind to prevarication -- or could it be that those who read
Barton AND know the primary sources quickly dismiss Barton as a quack?

O, the waste!  O, the humanity!

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and the
Oath
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:30 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061a866-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Jim (Avalon9) said:  >>yes!  thank you both.  Actually, if you look
back carefully, it may be that George Mason was more an architect of the
Constitution in many ways than was even Jefferson.  Mason appears to have
come up with many of the conceptual constructs that Jefferson (and to a
lesser extent Madison) put into much more poetic language.<<

These discussions too often get to a point that it looks like an argument
over whether or not Jefferson ever prayed, and the rest of the remarkable men
(and women -- especially Abigail Adams) who contributed greatly get
overlooked in the rush.

George Mason is one of those.  He was at various times very close to
Jefferson and Madison, and Mason's disappointment in the final Constitution
was a source of real concern and sadness to Madison.  Even in opposition
these men remained friends, dear, dear friends.  While sniping nastily at
each other in the papers, Madison and Hamilton met for dinner with Jefferson
to discuss the issue of a national bank, and apparently did so with some
regularity.  These sessions are recorded only in the diaries of
 these men, and you'll not find the nitty gritty in any collection of quotes.
The enmity between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic
Republicans does not give a clue to the collaborations between Madison and
Hamilton who arranged the Constitutional Convention on a bit of a ruse, who
wrote separately the Federalist Papers published under one name, and who each
put words in Washington's mouth.

The incredible friendship between Adams and Jefferson was ruptured by the
election of 1800.  Benjamin Rush, close friend to each, wrote Adams that he
had spoken to Jefferson who, Rush said, lamented that the breach might never
be mended, much to Jefferson's sorrow.  Rush wrote Jefferson that he had
spoken to Adams who feared, Rush said, that the breach might never be mended.
Rush engineered the mending of the friendship -- and friendship that
continued until both died on July 4, 1826 -- 50 years to the
 day  . . .  (these stories are recounted in Bill Bennett's compilation,
*Book of Virtues*, and his new book whose title I don't have, and other
places).

Mason is often overlooked.  Henry's dogmatism probably lessened his career,
but his oratorical capabilities should never be underestimated.

And on, and on.  

The REAL story, the true story, of what went on in the creation of America
from 1750 to 1815 defies any easy categorizing.  It defies stereotypes.  And
it richly, richly deserves a closer reading than we can possibly get in any
school.

Which reminds me there is another book out that I've not had a chance to
peruse, but which several people have commended highly to me:  *Hamilton's
Gift*.

And don't forget *The American Aurora* for a detailed history of some of the
darkest days of our republic, when Adams' Federalists used the Alien and
Sedition Acts to imprison editors accused of blaspheming the republic and its
officers.

Ed



Subject: Re:Jeff'son, Madison:
Religi
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:40 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061b281-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Earlier on this same BatChannel:
ED:  I take it you've never read the Memorial and Remonstrance, Kevin?  

KC:  Obviously you haven't read my analysis of it on my web site or in
previous posts.

ED: It is echoed in virtually every other document on religious freedom in
America.  What do you hope to gain in revising history to denigrate this
great man and his work?

KC: I'm not trying to "denigrate" him, onl yput him in context. His memorial,
as I have shown, was still Christian, and was against taxes imposed to
support clergy. That battle is OVER!! For the Supreme Court to return to this
document and urge that Madison wanted all Christianity removed from schools
and public life is WRONG! That was not the battle Madison fought, and if he
did want that, he lost - at least legally. He would have to wait 170 years
for Secular Humanists to get on the bench and violate
 their oaths of office.<<<<<<

Well, here's part of what Madison wrote, why he opposed Henry's bill to pay
clerics out of tax monies:

"Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent
Judge of Religious
Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first
is an arrogant
pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and
throughout the
world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

"Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the
support of the
Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian
Religion itself, for every
page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a
contradiction to fact;
for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only
without the support of
human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during
the period of
miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the
ordinary care of
Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented
by human policy,
must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human
policy. It is
moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in
its innate
excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still
reject it, a
suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to
its own merits.

"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of
maintaining the
purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost
fifteen centuries
has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its
fruits? More or
less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
servility in the laity, in
both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of
Christianity for the
ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point
to the ages prior to
its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive
State in which its
Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them
predict its
downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when
for or when
against their interest?"


I still wonder whether Kevin's read the thing in its entirety.  

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible bill
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:46 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061b884-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said Madison signed a bill supporting the printing of Bibles.
Challenged for a citation, he turns back to Barton's butchering of history:
>>The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Wash:
Gales & Seaton, 1853) 12th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1325: "An Act for the relief
of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties
arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported
during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board
 the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of
printing editions of the Holy Bible, be andthe same are hereby remitted, on
behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security
give for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled.
Approved February 2, 1813."<<

Gales and Seaton got it right, but Barton has misrepresented this to you,
Kevin.  Have you looked into it?

This is not a gratuitous favor done to promote a good Christian printer.
This is a case where an American publisher of Bibles was required to pay
duties on printing plates which were, it was later determined, not due.  How
does the printer get his money back?  Private bill.

And here it is.  Remitting to an American businessman duties collected from
him in error is simple justice under the American system, not evidence of any
Christian bias.

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible bill, more
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061c293-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin defends his Bartonesgue reading of history and the "Bible bill":
>>1. J&M also had Christian ideals, and the manifestation of those Christian
ideals, as in the law above, would have been ruled "unconstitutional" by the
current court. That shows that the Court does not understand Madison and
Jefferson. Nor does the Court understand the entire Congress that passed that
law, the Supreme Court that allowed it to stand, and the Framers who framed
the Constitution.  The Court does not understand the
 Christian history of this country before the Revolution, does not understand
how it shaped the Constitution, and how it continued to exist without legal
condemnation for 170 years.<<

In my previous post I noted this was a simple refund of incorrectly collected
import duties to an American businessman.  Congress passed the private bill
that way.  The Court of Claims would have had jurisdiction, not the Supreme
Court, but in any case it was never contended.  Remember that the First
Amendment does not require government to be any more hostile to an American
businessman who is Christian or who publishes Christian literature than it
would be to a businessman who is not Christian or who
 publishes non-Christian or anti-Christian literature.  If the duties were
collected unfairly, they should have been refunded.  They were.  End of
story.

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but deals instead with
import duties and the like.

Kevin continues:  >>2. The secular ideals of J&M were not the ideals of the
vast majority of Americans, and were not put into legal force by the
Constitution. The Court is imposing its own secular agenda using the
Constitution (or Jeff. and Madison) as a cloak. Madison did not advocate
stripping Christianity from the national landscape.The Constitution did not
do so.<<

The point is that the authors of the Constitution, and of the Declaration of
Independence before that, did not wish to create any flavor of christian
nation.  Their intentions are quite clear from the documents they wrote,
debated at great length, approved, got the states to ratify, and worked and
lived under.  Are we to believe that this collection of incredibly gifted
men, working over more than 20 years, never once had the sense to write into
law "Oh, by the way, this is supposed to be a Christian
 nation?"  Are we to believe them so stupid that in 20 years they wouldn't
have noticed such an oversight -- had that been their intention?

Neither God nor Jesus make appearances in the Constitution.  That is by
design, not accident.  The design may be divine without them, but it would be
unholy with them in it.  

Get over it.

Ed



Subject: Re:Shiftiness
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 09:59 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061c7ea-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Holy Trinity was in effect overturned by Macintosh.
Engel v. Vitale ripped God out of schools without overturning any cases -- it
DID NOT CITE A SINGLE PRECEDENT!!  It was an amazing case of brazen judicial
fiat, imposing the religion of Secular Humanism onthe states.<<

Holy Trinity is good law today -- in the key part that is cited, which is on
how the Court can be construed.  If you Shepardize the case, you will see
that it has NEVER been overturned.  But why should it be?  It does not hold
that the U.S. is a christian nation -- there is nothing there to be
overturned.

Engel v. Vitale without precedent?  As I noted earlier, there was not great
move to horsewhip children to pray against their will prior to the end of
WWII.  Consequently, there would be no precedents.  

The shift wasn't in the Supreme Court's views; the shift was that
over-excited commie haters tried to hijack the schools and religion to unholy
use.  That hadn't happened before Joe Stalin scared Americans silly.  The
Court said find other means to fight communism, the Constitution gives
children the right to pray as they wish and we cannot force them to do
otherwise.

By the way, we found other tools to beat the commies.  Without school prayer,
communism is close to death.  

Ed



Subject: Re:Theocracy and
Jefferson
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 10:06 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061cd63-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Previously:  >>You can look it up in nearly any history book.
Jefferson and Madison were giants in the establishment of freedom of thought
and religion in the U.S., and the world.  <<

Kevin said:  >>You exhibit a blind faith in secondary sources. The picture of
Jefferson and Madison given by most 20th century secular historians
overstates J&M's secular sides and the impact of their secular ideas on the
Constitution.<<

And you, Kevin, exhibit a peculiar contempt for good scholarship.  Dumas
Malone won a Pulitzer for his six-volume biography of Jefferson.  Do you have
a clue why Barton never quotes from him?  Would it surprise you to learn that
the most thorough scholar of Jefferson doesn't support Barton's wild claims?
Madison and Jefferson stood for freedom, freedom of religion and speech and
other freedom -- your labeling those concepts "secular" makes them no less
holy.

>>ED:  To say otherwise is a contemptible lie.
KC:  >>So you're calling a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (Rehnquist)
a contemptible liar. Fine. He is calling attention to other scholars who are
calling into question the emphasis placed on the secular notions of J&M. I
suppose they just don't know as much as you do, right Ed? <<

To the extent that Rehnquist seemed to have bought into Barton's Bowdlerized
history, Rehnquist repeated a contemptible lie.  Rehnquist stopped short of
repeating your version of Holy Trinity, however.  It'll be interesting to see
if he holds that view if they get a chance to rule on something similar.
Judging by his views in the Boerne case, I'd say he's dropped Barton like a
bad habit.  We'll see.  

Odd, isn't it?  Hundreds of scholars have gone over the primary sources in
the collections at Monticello, the University of Virginia, Williamsburg, the
Library of Congress and in Philadelphia.  Of those, only Barton comes up with
the odd view -- and every time we run down his sources, he seems to have left
out important words that rebut or contradict his reading of the instant. 

Ed



Subject: Re:Bible in schools?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 10:29 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0061e750-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I said:  >>The remaining issue is one that I've not seen you (or anyone
else) document -- that the Bible was key part of the curriculum.  Any
historian of education should be able to verify your charge, but I note that
you don't cite any of them.
Apart from David Barton, have you got any sources that say the Bible was as
important as you say it was?  Do they say school prayer was widespread?  
Do you have any CREDIBLE sources that say so?<<

Kevin responded:  >>THis is wild. You say Barton is unreliable because he
quotes secondary sources (which is no longer the case) I say, read the texts,
read the Founders. Now you say, quote a secular historian and THEN I'll
believe you.<<

No, I don't care whether Barton quotes secondary, primary or tertiary
sources.  You are confusing my critique with someone else's.  I say Barton is
unreliable because he is congenitally incapable of getting the facts
straight, even on issues that are readily researchable.

I take you have no evidence that the Bible was ever used extensively as a
curriculum tool to teach religion.  I thought so.

Ed




Subject: Re:de Tocqueville
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 11:47 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0062322a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

 KC>> There is absolutely no basis -- except in the fertile imagination
of the Supreme Court -- to believe that this understanding of the oath as a
religious solemnity was overthrown by the US Constitution. Thus, the idea
that religion must be separated from the State is a myth.<<

CorumB>  Kevin subsequently quotes de Tocqueville.  Alexis de Tocqueville was
from France, and wrote his book after an extended tour of the United States.
His book was widely read, and translated into several languages and published
under various titles. Here's a quote as Kevin posted it:

   >>KC: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE: "Upon my arrival in the United States, the
religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention;
and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political
consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was
unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and
the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other;
but in America I found that they were intimately united, and
 that they reigned in common over the same country. p.337 <<

CorumB>  Kevin provides the original source and its page number, but implies
that he copied it from Barton's _Original Intent_ (Kevin stated>> Want
zillions more quotes? See Barton, Original Intent, ch 17, and pp. 165-172 or
thereabouts.<<).   Read the the FULL paragraph of the passage from de
Tocqueville, to see what Barton and/or Kevin omitted: 

  "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was
the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the
more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new
state of things.  In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion
and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.  But in America I
found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the
same country.  My desire to discover the causes of
 this phenomenon increased from day to day.  In order to satisfy it I
questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the
society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and
are especially interested in their duration.  As a member of the Roman
Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of
its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted.  To each of these men
I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts.  I found
 that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all
attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the
separation of church and state.  I do not hesitate to affirm that during my
stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the
laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point."
   -- Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_, Vol. I, Phillips Bradley
Edition, from Reeve Text with Bowen's corrections, with introduction by
Daniel J. Boorstin, Vintage Books (a division of Random House, Inc.), NYNY,
p. 308.

CorumB:>>Always check the original source. Even when Kevin's quotes are
accurate, they aren't necessarily in context.<<

HA!  Kevin/Barton (joined at the hip?) are proven once again to be
contemptable history revisionist liars and frauds.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 14:16 EST
From: JSojourner
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0062c656-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg says, <<""Your "liveral" Christianity has no place in comparison
with some of your statements. Please clearify.  If you ARE Christian, then
where is your Biblical training?  If you are involved in matters of pleasing
the world - what is your purpose?   Can any of us be honestly stradling the
creek, one foot on one side and the other on the opposite side?   I think
not.  Take a stand and root yourslf there.">>   I have no idea, ZKMeg, what
you are saying here.  But I have already told you where I
 attended college.  I have no interest in "pleasing the world" which is why
my sermons so often deal with the materialism of our society.  And no, we
can't be on the fence. I am not.  I am on the side of the poor, the voiceless
and the marginalized.  



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 14:22 EST
From: JSojourner
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0062cadb-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg says of the public schools, <<"Children are taught to report on
how their family functions.  
Children are being taught not English, Arithmetic, Geography, The
constitution,">>  Oh really?
What proof do you offer?  What schools?  School systems I am familiar with in
Indiana, Illinois,
Ohio and Pennsylvania ALL have parental review boards that help school boards
and teachers determine curricula.  ZKMeg also says, <<"There are many tings
wkrong with Goals 2000,">>
It was President Bush's idea and has the endorsement of Carter and Ford, as
well as Clinton.
Republicans like Dr. Sue Ellen Reed and Democrats like Evan Bayh & Frank
O'Bannon have been
very enthusiastic about it in Indiana.



Subject: Re:de Tocqueville
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 23:04 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00654b6c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed ponders:

<<For some reason Barton admirers never go to the primary sources.  I am not
sure if this is because they are so rapt with Barton they cannot see, or they
are congenitally blind to prevarication -- or could it be that those who read
Barton AND know the primary sources quickly dismiss Barton as a quack?

O, the waste!  O, the humanity!

Ed>>

No, Ed, its because they choose the evidence which best fits their bias.
Just the opposite of rigorous scholarship.  imho..its the hardest bias to
overcome.

Jim..



Subject: Two "Separations"
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:44 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006653e9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

As I review the days' posts, I can see the major stumbling block is a
failure correctly to define the phrase "separation of church and state." I
realize now this was also part of the inability of secularists on this board
to accept the reality that Art VI prohibits only denominational test oaths,
not all religious oaths.

The battle at the time of the Constitution was over state sponsorship of
ecclesiastical denominations and forms of worship. I would like to assure the
secularists on this board that Reconstructionists oppose govt funds for
churches or ecclesiastical denominations. The recent Promise Keepers rally
(which I'm sure you all followed carefully) is following the trend to
downplay ecclesiastical and denominational power-plays. I have no personal
interest in political support of any ecclesiastical denominations
 because I am a member of no such denomination. I have no interest in state
requirements for worship because I do not attend "worship services" and have
not for over a decade. Reconstructionists have long observed that the
"worship" stressed in the Bible is not confined to a "church building" and
various rituals or liturgies therein, but is obedience to God's Word in every
area of life, leaving no human action to the realm of the "secular."

Thus, the state was separated from the "church" in the older, liturgical
sense of "worship," but not the broader sense. The state was still, after the
Constitution, required to "worship" God by prohibiting murder, theft,
perjury, polygamy, and other things prohibited by the Bible. The State was
"separated" from the various liturgical concerns of the ecclesiastical
denominations.

"Separation of ch & st" meant no state-established liturgies, tithes,
churches. It did not mean the separation of the State from Christian
morality. This is why the US Supreme Court in the late 1800's ruled that the
1st Amendment did not eliminate laws against polygamy, expressly stating that
it was prohibited in all "Christian nations." This fact alone completely
destroys the theory of ch/st separation held by secularists today, and
advanced by the US SupCt after the Everson case. No court after Everson
 would say the words "Christian nation" in any opinion and use that as a
justification for its holding.

"Sep of Ch & St" meant disestablishing particular liturgical and
ecclesiastical customs from tax support or legislative mandate.
It did not mean separating general Christian moral principles from the law.
Nobody ever advocated separating the government from Christian principles,
and only a couple even dreamed of it.



Subject: Concerning DeTocqueville
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:47 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665499-at-3469db67@aol.com>

What on earth is all the consternation about my deTocqueville quote?

CorumB excitedly raises the banner:
 Read the the FULL paragraph of the passage from de
Tocqueville, to see what Barton and/or Kevin omitted: 

  "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was
the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the
more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new
state of things.  In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion
and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.  But in America I
found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the
same country.  

I ended quotation here. CorumB continues:

My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased
from day to day.  In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the
different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the
depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their
duration.  As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly
brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became
intimately acquainted.  To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and
explained my doubts.  I found that they differed upon matters of detail
alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in
their country mainly to the separation of church and state.  I do not
hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single
individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on
this point."
   -- Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_, Vol. I, Phillips Bradley
Edition, from Reeve Text with Bowen's corrections, with introduction by
Daniel J. Boorstin, Vintage Books (a division of Random House, Inc.), NYNY,
p. 308.

Always check the original source. Even when Kevin's quotes are accurate, they
aren't necessarily in context.

Ed adds:

This is my chief complaint about Barton.  Even when he's technically
accurate, he's leading his readers astray.  

Kevin does an admirable job of being dogged on these boards -- can you
imagine what a force for good would be created if there were actual knowledge
and understanding behind such doggedness?

LTS pronounces final judgment:
HA!  Kevin/Barton (joined at the hip?) are proven once again to be
contemptable history revisionist liars and frauds.

Oh brother. Let's go line by line:

  "On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was
the first thing that struck my attention; 

In the lines I omitted, DeT. speaks of this as "the dominion of religion." Is
this how we describe a secular nation?
 
and the longer I stayed there, the
more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new
state of things.  

Religion has political consequences. This is a no-no under the current
Secular Humanist regime.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion
and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.  

Under the French Revolution, the government was hostile to Christainity.

But in America I
found ***they were intimately united*** and that they reigned in common over
the
same country.  

Religion reigns. In France, Christianity was oppressed. Guillotined, to be
precise. In America, religion and government were "intimately united."

Continued===>



Subject: Concerning DeTocqueville
2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:49 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665624-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Just as DeTocq described America, Ben Franklin described it for the
French:

Bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable
consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion,
under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and
practised. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity [Deism] rare and secret; so
that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their
peity shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.
(B. Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin Consisting of His
LIfe, Written by Himself, Together with Essay, Humorous, Moral, and Literary,
Cheifly in the Manner of the Spectator, Richard Price, ed., 1793, 289.)

This is why Franklin told the French Revolutionist infidel Tom Paine to keep
his mouth shut.

But I digress.

I ended DeTocq's quotation here. CorumB continues:

"My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon 

What phenomenon? Why, the union of religion and government, of course.

increased
from day to day.  In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the
different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the
depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their
duration.  As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly
brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became
intimately acquainted.  To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and
explained my doubts.  I found that they differed upon matters of detail
alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in
their country mainly to the separation of church and state.  I do not
hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single
individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on
this point."

Now, the secularists see the phrase "Sep of Ch & St" and start foaming. I'm a
liar and FRAUD!! 

But CLEARLY, the phrase does not mean what the current US SupCt means by it.
It does not mean Religion is kept quiet and has no influence. It does not
mean religion is a purely private affair. ("Religion" here means - as it
usually does at the beginning of the 1800's -- *Christainity* )  It simply
means that there is freedom among Christians among the various denominations.
Again, it is the different **denominations** that are in focus here. Taxes
are not levied to support a particular ecclesiastical
 denomination. Further reading shows this amazing fact: when the clergy are
barred from the Federal swine trough, it has a purifying effect on religion.
They stop arguing among themselves as to who will get more gov't money, and
who will have more political power. They join hands and start working for
social transformation. They are known by their fruits, and respected. 

And I repeat, there is not a single Reconstructionist who opposes "separation
of church and state" as it is here described by de Tocqueville. 

Now if we can just dis-establish liberalism, and separate it from the federal
swine trough, all our nation's problems will be solved.





Subject: McGuffy and the Bible
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:51 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006656df-at-3469db67@aol.com>

"From no source has the author drawn more copiously than from the
Sacred Scriptures. For this [I] certainly apprehend no censure. In a
Christian country, that man is to be pitied, who, at this day, can honestly
object to imbuing the minds of youth with the language and spirit of the Word
of God." 
(Wm McGuffey, McGuffey's Eclectic Third Reader, Cincinnati: Winthrop Smith &
Co., 1848, p.5, preface.)



Subject: Establshmnt of
Denominations
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:57 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665865-at-3469db67@aol.com>

The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government (not the states)
from establishing a national religion, that is, denomination. This was
Madison's proposal for the Amendment:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or
worship, nor shall any national religion be established."

Was Madison at all concerned that Hinduism would be established as the
national religion? Not at all. He feared Anglicanism, or Presbyterianism, or
some other *denomination* of Christians would be declared the national
religion, taxes imposed to support their ecclesiastical orders, and
denominational allegiance required for public officers.

Notice the proposal of GeoMason, "Father of the Bill of Rights":

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular
sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in
preference to others.

The Annals of Congress records the debates:

AUG 15, 1789: Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be,
that "Congress would not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observance of it by law." [T]he State[s]  . . . seemed to entertain an
opinion that under the clause of the Constitution . . . it enabled them
[Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might . . . establish a national
religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended . .
. .   Mr. Madison though if the word "national" was inserted
 before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen . . . .
He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the
amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent."

After bouncing back and forth between House and Senate, the Amendment did not
contain Madison's language, but was understood to contain his intent, as seen
in the State ratifying conventions. Gov Samuel Johston affirmed this during
No.Carolina's convention:

I know of but two or three states where there is the least chance of
establishing any particular *religion.* The people of Massachusetts and
Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people are
divided into a great number of *sects.* In Rhode island, the tenets of the
Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the
most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are
as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any *sect*
 prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the
Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other *sects.* In Virginia,
there are many *sects*; you all know what their *religious* sentiments are.
So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope,
therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one
*religion* shall be exclusively established.[20] 

Also speaking to the First Amendment in the same convention, Mr. Iredell: 

[Congress] certainly [has] no authority to interfere in the establishment of
any *religion* whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should
conceive they have. . . . Happily no *sect* here is superior to another. . .
. This article is calculated to secure universal *religious* liberty, by
putting all *sects* on a level.[21] 

As Story wrote specifically regarding the purposes of Article VI: 

It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a
successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass
test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of
trust and profit, under the national government.[22] 



Subject: Establshmnt of
Denominatns 2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 05:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006658ea-at-3469db67@aol.com>

As late as 1951, legal authorities still recognized the definition of
"religion" articulated in the "Mormon" cases: 

Religion . . . . As used in constitution provisions forbidding the
"establishment of religion," the term means a particular system of faith and
worship recognized and practiced by a particular church, sect, or
denomination. Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 149, 25 L.Ed. 244; Board of Education
v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 241, 13 Am.Rep. 233.[23] 

Thus, the "establishment" of a "religion" was the establishment of a
particular Christian denomination or sect. Similarly, a "religious" test
would be better understood in our day by calling it a denominational test.
But these provisions were understood in a context of a Christian civil
structure. 



Subject: Denominational Oaths
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:02 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006659e2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Torcaso v. Watkins involved the denial of the issuance of a notary
commission to an applicant who refused to declare his belief in the existence
of God as required by the Maryland Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that "Article VI of the Federal Constitution
[provides] that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'" The Court then
declared that 

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights requirement before us -- it sets up a religious test. .
. .

The Constitution said not to have one; Maryland had one. One hundred and
eighty-five years' worth of Marylandian jurists must surely be humiliated by
this embarrassing oversight. How could this egregious transgression of
unambiguous Constitutional mandate go so long unnoticed? 

The answer is as simple as it is controversial. Maryland's requirement that
officers declare their belief in God was never a "religious test" as
prohibited by Article VI or the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution is
either evidence of this fact, or more evidence of the awkward incompetence of
the Maryland Constitutional Convention. It says, in language taken from the
Federal Constitution, "[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a
qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a
declaration of belief in the existence of God." The Maryland Constitution,
according to the Torcaso Court, simultaneously forbids and
 requires "religious tests." And this "indisputable" contradiction occurs in
the space of 35 words within a single article of the constitution's
Declaration of Rights. 

The Court's perception of a contradiction is actually the Court's
misunderstanding of legal history and the use of the word "religion" and
"religious test" at the time both constitutions were written. The Torcaso
Court would impute an enigmatically contradictory character to both the
Maryland Constitution and to many Framers of the Federal Constitution. 

For example, James Wilson, who later became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme
Court, joined Thomas Mifflin in signing the U.S. Constitution, including
Article VI, yet returned home to Pennsylvania to help draft the state
constitution in 1790, which required that each member of the legislature, 

before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration,
viz, "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the
rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."




Subject: Denominational Oaths 2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:03 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665a60-at-3469db67@aol.com>

After George Read, Richard Bassett, and John Dickinson signed a
Constitution which forbad "religious tests," they likewise returned to their
home state and drafted Delaware's constitution, which, without contradicting
their work in Philadelphia, required: 

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to
any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the
following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the
Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God,
Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old
andNew Testaments to be given by divine inspiration." 

After signing the Federal Constitution, William Blount returned to Tennessee
and helped create the 1796 Tennessee Constitution, a document which makes
perfect sense to a Christian Theocrat, but is internally self-contradictory
by Torcaso standards: 

Art. VIII, Sec. II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state
of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of
this State. 
Art. XI, Sec. IV, That no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under this state. 

Most states had similar requirements, often drafted by those who signed the
federal Constitution. Their actions are bafflingly inexplicable by Torcaso
standards, standards which have evolved over generations of transition from a
Christian Theocracy to a Humanist Theocracy. But when the definition of
"religion" held by most in that day is understood, these seemingly
contradictory requirements are intelligible. That definition is shaped by the
culturally-dominant religion of the day, which was not Secular
 Humanism, as in our day, but Christianity. 



Subject: Re:Disestablishment #1
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:04 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665aba-at-3469db67@aol.com>

One of Ed's recent posts shows the hopelessness of secularists who fail
to understand the original intent of our Christian Founders. Here is his
quote:

Winthrop Hudson's college text, *Religion in America* (I've got a 3d edition,
Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1981), says "Philip Schaff was right when he
asserted that the whole question of religious freedom had been settled prior
to the formation of the national government by the previous history of the
American colonies. (Schaff, *Church and State in the United States* (NY
1888)).  

Note again, it was not Madison who lead the movement toward ecclesiastical
disestablishment. But now notice that although there was **ecclesiastical**
disestablishment, there was not "religious" disestablishment, in the sense
that Christianity was purged from the law (as the post-Everson Court has
attempted to do). Listen carefully to the rest of the quote:

Of the original thirteen colonies, four -- Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- had long been fully committed to a policy of
religious liberty, and the Anglican establishments in five of the remaining
colonies -- New York, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia
-- quickly toppled after the outbreak of hostilities when the supporting prop
of English authority was withdrawn.  

Notice the literary paralellism: "religious liberty" had been "fully
established" in those states long before, and the **Anglican** establishment
later fell. We are talking about the religious liberty *within* Christianity.
Proof comes in looking at the law of those four states:

Rhode Island: Roger Williams may not have been a Calvinist, but he was still
a Christian, and the legacy he left in RI saw public office restricted to
*Protestants*.

New Jersey: I'm looking for the relevant statutes.

Pennsylvania: James Wilson, who later became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme
Court, joined Thomas Mifflin in signing the U.S. Constitution, including
Article VI, yet returned home to Pennsylvania to help draft the state
constitution in 1790,[9] which required that each member of the legislature, 

"before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz, "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the
universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do
acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine
Inspiration."[10] 

But this qualifies as FULL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY because you did not have to be a
member of any particular DENOMINATION.

Delaware: Well, we should about Delaware by now, because that's the oath I'm
trying to take: explicitly Trinitarian.

Notice the rest of Ed's quote: The speedy action of New York in
repealing all laws or acts which 'may be construed to establish or maintain
any particular **denomination** of Christians' was typical.  Indeed, the
North
Carolina Assembly anticipated the repudiation of British authority when it
refused in 1773 to renew the Vestry Act, an action which had the practical
effect of bringing the establishment there to an end.  Only in Virginia, and
in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, was there delay; and even
in these four arease the struggle for religious liberty was carried on during
the war years as part of the revolutionary struggle itself.  In Virginia, as
early as June 12, 1776, an effort was made to forestall the popular tide and
to preserve some remnant of the establishment by adopting a 'Declaration of
Rights' which asserted that 'all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion.'"




Subject: Re:Disestablishment #2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:05 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665aca-at-3469db67@aol.com>

It's amazing that after fighting a war with England, Virginians still
wanted their government to support the Church of England. I know I wouldn't.
So Madison and Jefferson deserve credit for finally getting Virginia to join
the union. But I say again, the post Everson Court exaggerates their
importance in ecclesiastical disestablishment, precisely because the Court
wants to pursue religious (Christian) disestablishment, which was nobody's
intention when the Constitution was ratified.



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:08 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665b23-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS:
Christianity even condemned as basic a
health care need as bathing as "sin".  Daily bathing --- which the  ancient
Greeks and Romans practiced --- was not to become the norm again until the
early 1900s.

KC:
I'd love to see a footnote for this. With all their water rituals and
emphasis on "cleanness," the Hebrew-Christian religion has always been seen
as a source of washing and hygiene. I've read some pagans ridicule their
emphasis on washing; in this context the French are applauded for their more
infrequent bathing.



Subject: Religious freedom +
oaths #1
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665c47-at-3469db67@aol.com>

One of Ed's recent posts shows the hopelessness of secularists who fail
to understand the original intent of our Christian Founders. Here is his
quote:

Winthrop Hudson's college text, *Religion in America* (I've got a 3d edition,
Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1981), says "Philip Schaff was right when he
asserted that the whole question of religious freedom had been settled prior
to the formation of the national government by the previous history of the
American colonies. (Schaff, *Church and State in the United States* (NY
1888)).  

Note again, it was not Madison who lead the movement toward ecclesiastical
disestablishment. But now notice that although there was **ecclesiastical**
disestablishment, there was not "religious" disestablishment, in the sense
that Christianity was purged from the law (as the post-Everson Court has
attempted to do). Listen carefully to the rest of the quote:

Of the original thirteen colonies, four -- Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- had long been fully committed to a policy of
religious liberty, and the Anglican establishments in five of the remaining
colonies -- New York, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia
-- quickly toppled after the outbreak of hostilities when the supporting prop
of English authority was withdrawn.  

Notice the literary paralellism: "religious liberty" had been "fully
established" in those states long before, and the **Anglican** establishment
later fell. We are talking about the religious liberty *within* Christianity.
No particular 'church' (denomination) was established. Proof comes in looking
at the law of those four states:

Rhode Island: Roger Williams may not have been a Calvinist, but he was still
a Christian, and the legacy he left in RI saw public office restricted to
*Protestants*.

New Jersey: I'm looking for the relevant statutes.

Pennsylvania: James Wilson, who later became a Justice on the U.S. Supreme
Court, joined Thomas Mifflin in signing the U.S. Constitution, including
Article VI, yet returned home to Pennsylvania to help draft the state
constitution in 1790,[9] which required that each member of the legislature, 

"before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz, "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the
universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do
acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine
Inspiration."[10] 

But this qualifies as FULL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY because you did not have to be a
member of any particular DENOMINATION.

Delaware: Well, we should about Delaware by now, because that's the oath I'm
trying to take: explicitly Trinitarian.



Subject: Religious Freedom +
Oaths #2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:14 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665c83-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Notice the rest of Ed's quote: The speedy action of New York in
repealing all laws or acts which 'may be construed to establish or maintain
any particular **denomination** of Christians' was typical.  Indeed, the
North
Carolina Assembly anticipated the repudiation of British authority when it
refused in 1773 to renew the Vestry Act, an action which had the practical
effect of bringing the establishment there to an end.  Only in Virginia, and
in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, was there delay; and even
in these four arease the struggle for religious liberty was carried on during
the war years as part of the revolutionary struggle itself.  In Virginia, as
early as June 12, 1776, an effort was made to forestall the popular tide and
to preserve some remnant of the establishment by adopting a 'Declaration of
Rights' which asserted that 'all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion.'"

It's amazing that after fighting a war with England, Virginians still wanted
their government to support the Church of England. I know I wouldn't. So
Madison and Jefferson deserve credit for finally getting Virginia to join the
union. But I say again, the post Everson Court exaggerates their importance
in ecclesiastical disestablishment, precisely because the Court wants to
pursue religious (Christian) disestablishment, which was nobody's intention
when the Constitution was ratified.



Subject: Re:Quotes:  Accurate?
Real?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:15 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665ca8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

 EDarr1776:
Kevin said:  >>KC:
Are you talking about John Adams:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred
as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and
"Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made
inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

Or John Quincy Adams:
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and
religious code. . . laws essential to the existence of men in society and
most of which have been enacted by every nation whch ever professed any code
of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane
antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for
morality as this decalogue lays down.<<


Are you claiming these fellows actually said these things?  
Then surely you
can tell us where, in their voluminous papers, we might find them.

They have not the ring of truth to them.  (Though they may be true; let's get
the citation and the context)

J.Adams: A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of
America (Phila: Wm Young, 1797) III:217, from "The Right Constitution of a
Commonwealth Examined," Letter VI.

JQA, Letters of John Qunicy Adams to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings
(Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850) 34.



Subject: Questions on Trinity
case
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:18 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665db9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said, of Holy Trinity, and whether the reporters say it holds any
religious water:  >>Because this is not the best evidence. You would
criticize Barton if he relied on West. Read the case, that's all I can say.
It is not hard to understand, even someone who's not a lawyer can understand
it: a majority of the US Sup Ct signed onto an opinion which said that a law
cannot be interpreted adversely to Christians because "this is a Christian
nation." No concurring opinions, dissenting in part. It shatters the entire
illusion of secular America foisted upon us by the current Court.<<

I've read the case probably a hundred times in the last 20 years, and it
never changes (though I admit my understanding increases from time to time).
The holdings remain the same, just as the Supreme Court's clerk listed them
in 1892.  And saying the U.S. is a christian nation is NOT one of the
holdings.  The Court held that it's not required to think Congress hostile to
Christianity, in one of five or six issues decided.

And in those purple prose passages in which he cites the wacko cases of
Ruggles and Updegraph, Brewer goes around the bend.  As I noted in earlier
posts, his opinion is wrong on the history (and Ruggles and Updegraph are
oddball cases, too -- bad precedent in the states from which they came).  Bad
legal scholarship.

Which is why even Rehnquist noted that the Holy Trinity case does not "hold"
that the U.S. is a christian nation . . .

KC:
Ed, Romans 2 explains to me why you accuse me of bluffing.
Who in their right mind would read the Holy Trinity case 5 times a year for
two decades running?
You toss out a condemnation of the legal scholarship of the US Supreme Court
in a quite off-hand way. Just what is odd ball about Ruggles and Updegraph?
This is the world described by de Tocqueville. Odd today, to be sure, but
quite common then. Just why are they bad precedents for the SupCt to cite?
And where did Rehnquist note that H.T. did not "hold" that the U.S. is a
Christian nation. It's right there for all to see. Or do you attach some
arcane meaning to the word "hold." The Court "held" that the preacher could
not be denied entrance to the country. The ratio decidendi - the reason for
holding this - is because this is a Christian nation. No one went to Court
asking for some kind of "advisory" ruling on the question whether the US is a
Christian nation. That was the fact upon which the Court
 based its holding.
The history recited by the Court is emphatic evidence that this was, in fact,
a Christian nation. It's "odd" because we have been Orwellianized: Slavery is
freedom and America does not have a Christian history.



Subject: Rushdoony + 10
Commandments
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:20 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00665f40-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said:  >>All of your many questions, "what does the Bible say to do
when X happens," is a field of law called "casuistry." the first 200 years of
American legal history is full of this activity. Criminal codes were
annotated with Bible references to reflect the work of legal authorities
combing scripture for guidance on how to craft the laws. All of these
situations have been worked out. See Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law
for more data.<<

ED:Rushdooney is full of thunder, but little light.

He overstates and misstates the influence of scripture.  

KC: Right. I'm sure you've read the massive 1,000 page tome. Like the Holy
Trinity case: "a hundred times in the last 20 years." Which would explain why
you, like the majority of Humanists, consistently mis-spell Rushdoony's name.

ED: The advocates of hanging the Decalogue in classrooms have been quite
upfront that their intention is to promote their Christianized cult.

Kevin said:  >>Are you calling the Founders members of a "christianized
cult?"<<

ED: They didn't call for the posting of religious tracts on the walls of
schoolrooms.  They don't qualify.

KC: You're calling the Ten Commandments a "religious tract"? That's a pretty
slimy attitude, doncha think? The impudence of the remark is apalling,
especially for a lawyer.

The Stone Court (which banned the 10 Commandments from schools) did not deny
the truth of the plaque below the Ten Commandments posted in the school
hallway, which read, "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." They just ruled it was
an disingenuous attempt to get "religion" into the schools (right where the
Northwest Ordinance said it should be).
Stone,  at 449 U.S. 41, 66 L.Ed.2d at 202. 

Harold J. Berman has written,

[E]ven fifty years ago . . . if you had asked Americans where our system of
law came from, on what it was ultimately based, the overwhelming majority
would have said, "the Ten Commandments," or "the Bible," or perhaps "the law
of God." . . . In the past two generations the public philosophy of America
has shifted radically from a religious to a secular theory of law. . . ."
H. Berman, "The Interaction of Law and Religion," 8 Cap. U. L. Rev. 345 at
349-50 (1979).

Berman was the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Justice
Story declared:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that
Christianity is part of the Common Law. . . .   There never has been a period
in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its
foundations. . . .  I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of
civil society.

Aren't you glad those 'christianized cultists' founded the Harvard Law
School?





Subject: Re:Holy Trinity v.
MacIntosh
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:23 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666011-at-3469db67@aol.com>

In a discussion of Holy Trinity vs. Macintosh, Ed says:

Do you think that, as a religious matter, we should grant citizenship to
anyone who claims that they want all the benefits but have a religious reason
why they can't serve in wartime?  What kind of policy is that?

KC: It's a good policy. Congress therefore changed the policy undergirding
Macintosh and Macintosh was overruled in Girouard v. U.S. (1946).



Subject: Re:Disestablishment
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:25 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006660ca-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said, in response to my citing from Hudson's religious history:
>>There is no logic or law which forces us to move from disestablishing a
particular denomination (allowing religious freedom for Baptists vis-a-vis
Anglicans) to the total disestablishment of Christianity (allowing religious
freedom for polygamists and cannibals). That's NOT what history shows, that's
what secularhumanists dream of: freedom from God.<<

I'm not claiming freedom from God.  But Hudson says, and Ketcham agress in
his bio of Madison, and Malone agrees in his Pulitzer Prize-winning,
six-volume bio of Jefferson, that these guys did indeed disestablish
Christianity.  Not just keeping one denomination from dominating, but making
belief safe for all -- though action, as you note in polygamy, may be reached
by law.  CorumB posted the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson, and
the notes from Jefferson's autobiography, in which they discussed this exact
point, saying that religious freedom was for all, including the "Hindoo," the
"Mohametn," and "infidels of all faiths."  

That may be freedom from God for the atheist.  But that's fine.  As Jefferson
said, what harm is it to you if your neighbor believes in one god, or twenty?
Or none?

KC:
In the long run, my country *is* harmed by people who believe in 20 gods. But
that's another story. The Framers of the Constitution said it doesn't matter
what a person believes and how he "worships." 
Now, if he wants to hold public office or testify in court, he has to take an
OATH, which is a religious solemnity before God. But this ritual transcends
denominations and undergirds the Common Law. He doesn't have to be an
Episcopalian to hold office, or a Presbyterian to testify in court. Just a
generic Christian. The movement to the "lowest common denominator' has been
destructive, but it was not mandated by the Constitution (though I would
argue it was set in motion by the Const. but that's a social
 question, not a legal one). The power to exclude from political office based
on religion and to declare days of public prayer and religious observance was
a power which Jefferson said "rested with the states."

The law has judged actions (such as polygamy) based on the Christian
religion. That is simply indisputable. Absolute religious freedom is a myth.
The establishment of a religion (in this broad sense, not the denominational
sense) is an inescapable concept.



Subject: Re:Unanimous?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:27 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006661cf-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said:  >>New Jersey, North Carolina, and Delaware had guaranteed equal
denominational protection well  before the VA Statute, so Jeff and Madison
were not exactly trailblazers.<<

You forget Roger Williams, who coined the phrase "wall of separation" long
before -- by creating a haven for religious freedom in Rhode Island.  The
issue isn't who was first.

KC:
The issue is Madison's influence, which is overstated by the current Court
because they are trying to secularize the law, and Madison is a pawn in their
hands.

Williams allowed more denominational freedom than Massachusetts. But there
was not absolute freedom. Total Religious freedom is an impossibility. 

Leo Pfeffer, who argued the secularist position in the Torcaso case, admits
that:

Rhode Island had adopted the pattern prevailing among the other colonies and
had enacted a law that limited citizenship and eligibility for public office
to Protestants.
L. Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, 252 (1967)

He does not approve of this, of course.



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:31 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006662a3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said:  >>There has been a trend toward secular paganism and away from
Puritan casuistry, that's undeniable. The question is a legal one: did the
Federal Constitution prohibit Delaware's Theocratic oath. The answer is No.
Did the Federal Constitution prohibit prayer and Bible reading in schools.
No. Not until 1961-63 was it (arbitrarily) decided thus by the SupCt.<<

The legal question was moot.  The Federal Constitution didn't need to do
anything to Delaware's oath for two reasons:  Delaware didn't live by that
law, and Delaware abolished the underpinning authority when it made religion
free.  The question is a moral one:  Can any religion stand that must bring
people to it by chaining their free will?

KC:
It most definitely IS a moral question. But the real question is, Can any
government stand that must bring people into it who will not be governed by
God?

Madison was clearly influenced by Enlightenment and Masonic influences, but
he still spoke of "religion" as "the duty which we owe to our Creator," and
the duty to our Creator as higher than the duty we owe to the State:

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator . . . homage . . . .
This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the
claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of
Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the
Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate
Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general
authority; much more must every man who becomes a member
 of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to
the Universal Sovereign."

This is precisely why Maryland required that before he be admitted to a
"subordinate Association" of Civil Society, Mr. Torcaso affirm his allegiance
to the Universal Sovereign. A "religious test" was simply a test of an
"acceptable" way of "render[ing] to the Creator such homage" as was due, and
the specificity of dispute between, e.g., the Baptists and the Episcopalians,
was beyond the scope of the Civil Magistrate. But broadly speaking, Madison
recognized the existence of "false Religions" and
 "nations who continue in darkness," in stark contrast to the post-World War
II Courts which so frequently cite him. 

But for some reason, secularlists never see this when they read Madison's
*Memorial.*




Subject: Re: What oath, then?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:32 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066633b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED said: >>Oaths requiring religious fealty were on the way out, often
disregarded as they were in Virginia, where even Catholics were elected to
high office despite official bans on the practice.<<

Kevin responded: >>I'm not talking about an oath requiring someone to be an
Anglican. Denominational tests oaths were an issue then, not now.<<

Ed:
You are asking to take a trinitarian oath.  You want a denominational oath.

The fact that an oath to any kind of a faith is forbidden you step over to
ask for an oath binding you to one sect of a faith?  How is that any less a
religious oath than any other?

KC:
You do not understand the basic terms in this debate. I do not belong to any
denomination. My proposed oath, and that of Delaware's, are
non-denominational. 

In addition, you forget that all oaths, in the nature of the case, are
religious. An oath means, "I swear to God." In a post-meaning world it may
not mean that, but that's what an oath meant at the time the constitution was
drafted. My proof of that has not been contested.

Finally, I don't seek to impose or have this oath imposed on one other human
being. I seek to take it voluntarily. It is clearly YOU who deny me religious
freedom -- logically so, given your secular presuppositions.



Subject: Re:Read it...
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006664ed-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
What makes you think that your current drive for an oath wouldn't be ruled
heretical?  What makes you think you'd be safe against a blasphemy law?  You
yourself rail against what you call a religion of secularism.  Think hard now
-- who would be the heretic if that were the religion?  

Religious freedom is a grand gift.  Even for those who don't appreciate it.

KC:
I am that heretic. I am the one who cannot be admitted. Atheists will not
allow me to take voluntarily an oath which excludes atheists, even though I
do not seek to have this oath required of atheists. Religious freedom is a
grand myth. You're right; I don't appreciate it. At least Massachusetts
didn't claim to be "neutral." The myth of neutrality is hypocrisy. There is
no neutrality. There is no pure religious freedom.

The only way to obtain it is to eliminate the State entirely.



Subject: Catholics and John Jay
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:40 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666686-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Some secularists have posted attacks on my use of John Jay, co-author
of the Federalist Papers and Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, because
he was anti-Catholic.

Jay was not against catholic religion (liturgy) so much as he was against
catholic politics. He was not alone. The greatest authority on the US
Constitutionm founder of Harvard Law School and Sup Ct Justice Joseph Story
explains the rationale: It was their political loyality to the Pope.

"[If] men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate
has nothing to do with it unless their tenets and practice are such as
threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect .
. . papists . . . . But while they acknowledge a foreign power superior to
the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that
kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."

Some will say that JFK's Catholicism was no problem, and it should not have
been for Jay. But Christians were better Christians then, and Catholics were
more Catholic then than today. One would be hard-pressed to give any evidence
that Kennedy had any more than nominal loyalty to the Pope; not so for
Catholics in Chief Justice Jay's and Justice Story's day.  



Subject: Relig Freedm: Xians only
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:43 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666799-at-3469db67@aol.com>

When the US Supreme Court heard the plea of the Mormons to be allowed
to practice the tenets of their religion (polygamy) based on the First
Amendment, they Court rejected the claim, noting,

"It is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the
passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention
of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States the declaration in a bill of rights that 'all men have an equal,
natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates of conscience,' the legislature of that State substantially
enacted the ...death penalty...[for bigamy/polygamy]."
 (Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145, 165 (1878) )

Religious freedom in the debates of that day meant "denominational freedom."
Separation of Church and State means separation of ecclesiastical worship and
state, not freedom from the Law of God.



Subject: Freedom of worship
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:45 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066687c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

The college text Ed cited said (correctly) that the battle for
religious freedom had been won before the Constitution was written. Everyone
was free to live Christian lives and no one would be forced to worship God in
a way that offended his conscience. But religious freedom did not mean free
to break the Law of God, and the end of "religious establishment" did not
mean the end of Christianity as the foundation of law and society. The State
constitutions reflected this:

New Hampshire: And every denomination of Christians . . . shall be equally
under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or
denomination to another shall ever be established by law. 

New Jersey: [T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect . . .
in preference to another.

North Carolina: [T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious church
or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Connecticut: And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this
State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges.

In additions, Jews, Turks and infidels could "worship" as they please, as
long as "worship" is limited to unimportant religious rituals and liturgies.
But if your religious acitivities threatened the social order this Christian
nation had cultivated by implementing Biblical Law, your "freedom" would end.
The prophet Micah asked, Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of
[liturgies and "worship services"]? [No.] The Lord requires of you to do
justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. (Micah
 6:7-8) Jesus said the "weightier matters" of God's Law are "justice, mercy
and faith" (Matt. 23:23). David said, God does not want liturgies (Psalm
51:16). Hosea added, God desires mercy, not ritual. And the knowledge of God
more than liturgy. (Hosea 6:6) Samuel said, To obey is better than a "worship
service." (1 Sam 15:22). "To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable
to the LORD than sacrifice" (Proverbs 21:3)

Religious freedom means freedom to do any kind of "church" activities you
like, and there will be no "established" church, no required liturgical
worship, no taxes to support certain rituals. But if your religion requires
you to steal, kill, commit adultery, lie or commit injustice, you will not
have freedom to do so, because this is a Christian nation.

This was the thinking of the Founders, though it is certainly not the
thinking of the modern secularist.




Subject: DeTocqueville and
Worship #1
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:47 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666988-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Religious freedom means freedom to do any kind of "church" activities
you like, and there will be no "established" church, no required liturgical
worship, no taxes to support certain rituals. But if your religion requires
you to steal, kill, commit adultery, lie or commit injustice, you will not
have freedom to do so, because this is a Christian nation.

In order to perpetuate justice, social order, and peace, the basics of God's
Law would be taught in all the schools.

Justice Joseph Story, in the most authoritative statement of the principles
of the Constitution in its day:

"We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious
establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to
Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of
the Constitution...Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
and of the first amendment to it. ...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 amendment was not to countenance, much
less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
Christianity; but 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."
(Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2:593-95)

Decades later this was still understood, as evidenced in a report in the
Senate Judiciary Committee:

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.' What
is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that
establishment which existed in the mother-country, and its meaning is to be
ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the
connection, with the state, of a particular religious society
[denomination]... [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in
exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exlusive
political
 rights, and by compelling the attendence of those who rejected its communion
upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars
constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so
justly jealous, and aginst which they wo wisely and carefully provided. . . .

They [Founding Fathers] intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an
establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing
like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they
wish to see us an irreligious people...They did not intend to spread over all
the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and
revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the
Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the
 Revolutionary Congress been conducted.

We are a Christian people...not because the law demands it, not to gain
exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and
education . . . .
(The Reports of the Committees of the Senate of the United States for the
Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1853, 1-4.)



Subject: DeTocqueville and
Worship #2
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666c5f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

A similar report emerged from the House Judiciary Committee:

What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a
man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must
observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the
doctrines and adminster the rites; it musthave tests for the submissive and
penalties for the non-conformist. There never was an established religion
without all these. . . . 
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war
against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its
cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments,
the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not
any one sect . . . .   Any attempt to level and discard all religion would
have been viewed with uiniversal indignation . . . .  It [Christianity]
...must be considered as the foundation on which the whole
 structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction
of religious sentiment, --without a firm belief that there is a Power above
us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age, there is
no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great
conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of
free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and
they expected it to remain the religion of
 their descendants. 
(Reports of the Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the
First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, 1854, 1,6,8-9.)




Subject: Religion and Education
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666fc1-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed:
There were not public resolutions requiring the teaching of "Biblical
morality."  There were resolutions and laws that supported education, in the
hopes that people who could read would be moral and good citizens.  The
government fostered education, not religion.  Can't you see the difference
yet?

See the Northwest Ordinance, for example.

KC:
This is really frightening. You say the government did not foster religion,
and your proof is the Northwest Ordinance?!? Here it is, let's see who's
blind:

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.  

Now, what was the purpose of building a school? To teach religion and
morality. And, yes, knowledge, like reading, to fight that "old deluder,
Satan." Good government rests on a solid foundation of religion and morality.
I've quoted the Founders on this, and haven't heard much about it.



Subject: Religion and Education
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:58 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00666fd5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed:
There were not public resolutions requiring the teaching of "Biblical
morality."  There were resolutions and laws that supported education, in the
hopes that people who could read would be moral and good citizens.  The
government fostered education, not religion.  Can't you see the difference
yet?

See the Northwest Ordinance, for example.

KC:
This is really frightening. You say the government did not foster religion,
and your proof is the Northwest Ordinance?!? Here it is, let's see who's
blind:

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.  

Now, what was the purpose of building a school? To teach religion and
morality. And, yes, knowledge, like reading, to fight that "old deluder,
Satan." Good government rests on a solid foundation of religion and morality.
I've quoted the Founders on this, and haven't heard much about it.



Subject: Dues not due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 06:59 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006670b9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ED:
Kevin said Madison signed a bill supporting the printing of Bibles.
Challenged for a citation, he turns back to Barton's butchering of history:
>>The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Wash:
Gales & Seaton, 1853) 12th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1325: "An Act for the relief
of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties
arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported
during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship
Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing
editions of the Holy Bible, be andthe same are hereby remitted, on behalf of
the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security give for the
securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved
February 2, 1813."<<

Gales and Seaton got it right, but Barton has misrepresented this to you,
Kevin.  Have you looked into it?

This is not a gratuitous favor done to promote a good Christian printer.
This is a case where an American publisher of Bibles was required to pay
duties on printing plates which were, it was later determined, not due.  How
does the printer get his money back?  Private bill.

And here it is.  Remitting to an American businessman duties collected from
him in error is simple justice under the American system, not evidence of any
Christian bias.

KC:
So share with us, would you please, the words which show this "later
determination," that the duties which, in the paragraph I posted, were
"arising and due," were *not* due.




Subject: Biblical prohibitions?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 07:02 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006672c6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin>>The state was still, after the Constitution, required to
"worship" God by prohibiting murder, theft, perjury, polygamy, and other
things prohibited by the Bible.<<

CorumB>  What Bible have you been reading? Read up on Solomon, then tell us
again how polygamy is prohibited by the Bible. Read the instances of
"inspired" genocide, and the account of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter as
a burnt offering to God (Judges 11:29-40), then tell us again how murder is
prohibited.  Note, too, that slavery was condoned in the Biblical laws. Is
that why slavery was allowed in this country before "secular humanists" took
over? Do you really miss the "good old days" of the Bible,
 or does your revisionism extend to the Bible as well?



Subject: Indians and their due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 07:02 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00667321-at-3469db67@aol.com>

In the days of the Founders, education was for inculcating religion and
morality.

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the
religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people
than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this
wise intention." 
(Geo. Washington, The Writings of George Washington, JC Fitzpatrick, ed.,
Wash. DC: US Govt Printing Office, 1932, Vol 15, p.55, from speech to the
Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.)

Jefferson also made sure that the Indians were educated in generic
Christianity. US Supreme Ct Justice Rehnquist explains:

Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians . . . provided annual cash
support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church . . . . The treaty
stated in part: "And whereas, the greater part of the Tribe have been
baptized and received into the Catholic church, to whch they are much
attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred
dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd  . . .
three hundred dollars to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a
 church." (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US 38, 103)

This was not an "establishment" because no other denomination was excluded by
law.

"In 1803 President Jefferson recommended that Congress pass a treaty with the
Kaskaskia Indians which provided, among other things, a stipend of $100
annually for seven years from the Federal treasury for the support of a
Catholic priest to minister to the Kaskaskia Indians. This and two similar
treaties were enacted during Jefferson's administration -- one with the
Wyandotte Indians and other tribes in 1806, and one with the Cherokees in
1807. In 1787, another act of Congress ordained special lands 'for
 the sole use of Christian Indians' and reserved lands for the Moravian
Brethren 'for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity' ...Congress
extended this act three time during Jefferson's administration and each time
[Jefferson] signed the extension into law." (Daniel Driesback, Real Threat
and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment, Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1987, p. 127. [The Public Statutes at Large of the United
States of America, Peters, Ed., (Boston: Little&Brown,
 1846) VII: 79 Art III, "A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia
Tribe of Indians," Dec. 23, 1803; VII:88, Art VI, "Treaty with the Wyandots,
etc.," 1805; VII:102, Art II, "Treaty with the Cherokees," 1806.)




Subject: Catholics and School
Prayer
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 07:04 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066749c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Chuck Why:
All this uproar about prayer in schools is hysterical.  I went to Catholic
schools ( a long time ago) and we prayed all the time.  We prayed at least 10
times a day.  We prayed for everything from world peace to victory in a
football game.  We prayed for better weather, for John Kennedy, for the Pope,
for better grades-------- you name it-- we prayed for it.   Hay gang-- it was
a worthless exercise.  It was simply something you did out of habit.  Nobody
thought about it, nobody gave it any meaning, nobody did anything except go
through the motions.  It had no more significance than brushing your teeth in
the morning, leaving a building or going to the jon.  You just did it.

KC:
As a Protestant (for lack of a better label) I agree that Catholic prayers
and bead-countings are pretty hokey. But I don't have the right -- even if I
push myself onto the bench of the US Supreme Court -- to tell a Catholic
School they can't have prayers.
And if I'm an atheist in a protestant town in a protestant county in a
protestant state, and the protestants want to pray during school, I can sit
still and be quiet and respectful. What's wrong with that? What right do I
have to force 29 other kids to stop praying just because it doesn't mean
anything to me, though it may mean everything to the other 29 kids? Is this
kind of self-centeredness the stuff of civilization? Is this what "majority
rule" means?

The answer, I keep saying, is to abolish government schools. Let every
religion have their own schools and stop putting a gun to their heads and
forcing them to cough up for schools they don't like. "Liberals," of course,
would never hear of such "liberty."



Subject: Bye for now
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 07:09 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006676c5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

It may be two weeks before I can re-join the discussion. I'm getting on
a plane for the "Show Me" state for a week, then a busy weekend with weddings
and such, perhaps back on Vet's Day.

I've been getting lots of quotes from Dumas Malone, Ed, so be ready! :-)

I look forward to spending a few hours upon my return catching up on your
responses to my barrage of posts this morning. Thanks to all.



Subject: Re:Two "Separations"
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 07:57 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006691d7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>"Separation of ch & st" meant no state-established
liturgies, tithes, churches. It did not mean the separation of the State from
Christian morality. This is why the US Supreme Court in the late 1800's ruled
that the 1st Amendment did not eliminate laws against polygamy, expressly
stating that it was prohibited in all "Christian nations."<<

Nor did it mean the separation of the state from Buddhist morality, or
atheist morality as promoted by the various Ethical Societies.  What's the
point?

You appear to assume that Christianity is the only code of morality around,
or the best one.  That's just not so.  

With careful thought, the founders set up what some historians have called a
"civic religion," which doesn't compete with any faith, but includes certain
principles that we as Americans hold dear -- the right to vote on almost
anything (here in Texas we vote on some issue or election about every three
months; Texas has RELIGION), due process, fair play, no bribes to get
government to work, etc.  In many respects this civic religion offers
advantages over a true religion.  Many times, the civic religion
 has pulled us to new heights of morality.

One point of the civic religion holds that you can do pretty much as you
please with your own worship to God, and the state won't interfere.  But in
return, you are expected to keep your nose out of others' worship as well.

And while we're at definitions, you ought to consider what the Court meant by
"Christian nations" during the 19th Century.  Generally they meant Europe,
outside the Ottoman Empire.  Justice Brewer's biographers claim that he did
not mean "Christian nation" as a religious term when he used it most often,
but was referring instead to what we called the West after WWII.

And in that regard, I note that the Christian nations of South American have
practiced polygamy in the 20th Century, after devastating wars wiped out
almost all the men.  The Pope authorized Paraguay to do so, noting that there
is no particular reason that bans polygamy when there is need to multiply the
nation, as the Israelites needed in the OT.

Had the Court used a literal reading of the Bible, had they stuck with
Christian doctrine, they might well have approved the Mormons' polygamy.  But
no, the Court said -- the U.S. is a "Christian nation," meaning "like
Europe."

Ed



Subject: Re:Concerning
DeTocqueville
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 08:00 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00669555-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin asks, almost innocently:  >>What on earth is all the
consternation about my deTocqueville quote?<<

Just this:  As Barton used it, and as you cut it, it suggests a unity of
religion and state.  

But in its full glory, de Tocqueville said that the reason religion
flourishes in America -- MORE than in Europe -- is because of the separation
of church and state.

The part you cut out contradicts your use of the quote.  In debate circles we
called that "strip quoting."  There is a commandment against such use.

Ed



Subject: Oaths aren't religious
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 09:37 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066eb8d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>In addition, you forget that all oaths, in the nature of
the case, are religious. An oath means, "I swear to God." In a post-meaning
world it may not mean that, but that's what an oath meant at the time the
constitution was drafted. My proof of that has not been contested.<<

What proof?  

I contest it here and now.  Oaths replaced seals -- oaths were more portable.
Seals were not religious.  Seals were used so that contracts could be
portable, so that two people who were not in one another's presence might
reasonably be assured that the signature or attestation was that of the
person it was alleged to be.

Today we use notaries public.  An agreement requires a person to
swear/attest/affirm that she will perform an act -- how does the other party
know for certain, or how can a court be certain, that the signature was
affixed by the person the document alleges?  Somebody else -- the notary --
authorized by the state to make such identifications and authentications
affixes a seal and notes that the person who signed the document presented
adequate evidence to suggest they were indeed the person alleged.  

End of story.

Where is God involved?  What is the religious aspect of this task?

Clearly religious oaths were not required by the founders.  The form of oath
specified in Article II Section 1 is not religious.  In this specific case,
the law is clear and opposite to your position.  

Ed



Subject: Re:Relig Freedm: Xians
only
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 09:46 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066f409-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>When the US Supreme Court heard the plea of the Mormons
to be allowed to practice the tenets of their religion (polygamy) based on
the First Amendment, they Court rejected the claim, noting,

"It is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the
passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention
of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States the declaration in a bill of rights that 'all men have an equal,
natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to
the dictates of conscience,' the legislature of that State substantially
enacted the ...death penalty...[for bigamy/polygamy]."
 (Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145, 165 (1878) )

Religious freedom in the debates of that day meant "denominational freedom."
Separation of Church and State means separation of ecclesiastical worship and
state, not freedom from the Law of God.<<

This is funny.  I'll go back and review the Reynolds and Davis cases -- but
the history in Virginia must be viewed in the context of what was going on in
Virginia.

First, the convention that ratified the Constitution was not the legislature.
They were two separate bodies.

Second, Virginia continued the process started by Mason and Jefferson in
1776, of denying common law jurisdiction to clergy for "religious" crimes.
Death was the usual penalty for almost all religious blasphemies and
heresies, though in practice death was the usual result of a third offense,
and the "death sentence" could be satisfied by a written apology from the
perpetrator, or in several colonies, by sitting in the gallows for a short
period of time with a noose around their neck.  Virginia never
 executed anyone officially or under due process for any of these religious
crimes, and as Jefferson noted in several places, it is unlikely that the
people of Virginia would have allowed such an execution.

So it appears that the Supreme Court relied on an act of the Virginia
legislature that didn't do what it appeared to do, but instead did the
opposite.  Maybe we should ask for a Rule 66 reversal?

Ed



Subject: Re:Religion and
Education
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 09:51 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0066fb7f-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I challenged Kevin on his assertion that the federal government had
ever supported religious education, and suggested he look to the Northwest
Ordinance.  He responded:  >>This is really frightening. You say the
government did not foster religion, and your proof is the Northwest
Ordinance?!? Here it is, let's see who's blind:

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.  

Now, what was the purpose of building a school? To teach religion and
morality. And, yes, knowledge, like reading, to fight that "old deluder,
Satan." Good government rests on a solid foundation of religion and morality.
I've quoted the Founders on this, and haven't heard much about it.<<

The purpose of building a school was to teach kids to read.  What's really
frightening is that you could have the accurate language in front of you and
miss the meaning.  

To the founders, the best moral training possible was learning to read.
People who could read couldn't be hoodwinked by corrupt preachers or
politicians.  Reading, therefore, was essential to maintaining morality, such
as it was on the frontier.

Note further that the action you rest your case on has no binding authority.
This clause merely says that education "is encouraged."

Great.  Teachers need cheerleaders.  But this does not evidence the Congress
appropriating money for nor prescribing a religious curriculum.  Which goes
back to the history of education.  You argue the purpose was to teach
Christianity.  We're still waiting for some evidence of that.  The first
three Rs were much more important.

Ed

Ed



Subject: Re:Two "Separations"
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 12:13 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00679f39-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:>>>As I review the days' posts, I can see the major stumbling block
is a failure correctly to define the phrase "separation of church and state."
I realize now this was also part of the inability of secularists on this
board to accept the reality that Art VI prohibits only denominational test
oaths, not all religious oaths.<<<

Again the history revisionist trashes our Founding Fathers by saying they
didn't have the intellect, education, and grasp of the English to no the
difference between the words "religion" and "denomination".

Nice try Kevin, but continuing this line of excrement will only discredit you
further.  (As if that is possible)  Bearing false witness again?  Tsk tsk
Kevin.  Religion means religion Kevin, and in no way can be construed to mean
"denomination", especially if the words Christian, Christ, Jesus, Bible, and
Judeo-Christian don't even appear in the entire text of our great
Constitution. You again and again have proven yourself to be a delusional and
pathological liar.  

For all who want to read this portion of our great Constitution, see below.
Anyone wanting a complete copy may easily find one on the web.  Don't let
history revisionist liars tell you what the Constitution says, read it for
yourself.

"The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or
affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States." (Article VI, paragraph 3)

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Establshmnt of
Denominati
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 12:20 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0067aaa8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KC:>>>The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government (not the
states) from establishing a national religion, that is, denomination. This
was Madison's proposal for the Amendment:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or
worship, nor shall any national religion be established."<<<

Again our revisionist friend thinks to trash our Founding Father's intellect,
education, and grasp of the English language by implying they did not know
enough to use the word "denomination" instead of "religion".  This is a
desperate reach by a desperate history revisionist, nothing more.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 13:30 EST
From: MmMadBroad
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0067ff8d-at-3469db67@aol.com>


<<Children are taught to report on how their family functions.  (It is NOT
the business of the State)
Children are being taught not English, Arithmetic, Geography, The
constitution,  . . . >>

I asked you before, ZKMeg, where you get your information about what is being
taught in the schools in this country -- whether you have kids in the
schools, whether you have first-hand knowledge?  I do have first hand
knowledge, from the fact that I currently have TWO kids in public schools,
one in elementary school, one in high school; plus I volunteer in
math/science classes in our local school (and, last year, along with my older
daughter, in an inner-city school that has "twinned" with her school);
 plus I and my husband are both involved in PTA and know the concerns of our
fellow-parents. I'm in contact with my kids' friends daily & I know what they
study. Plus my husband teaches a class for teen-agers at our church and has
many discussions with these young people about their concerns at school.
So -- my bottom line is, yes, the children in the public schools I am
acquainted with are taught <<English, Arithmetic, Geography, The
constitution,  . . . >> Believe me, if they did not, I would be on their case
faster than anybody. Frankly, I think the kids are better acquainted with
what the U.S. Constitution means than some of the people who post on this
board.
I am not sure what your issue is when you say that <<Children are taught to
report on how their family functions. >> In English classes, the kids in my
daughters' schools are being asked to write essays about things they are
familiar with, things that are close to their own lives. That's a standard
instructional technique, and, incidentally, one of the first things a
beginning writer is told to do.
Some of these essays involve talking about their families. For instance, in
one assignment, my daughter's high school teacher gave the kids an option to
write essays in which they would discuss how different aspects of society,
including families, impact on children's values. Some of the kids wrote about
how TV or movies impacted values. Many wrote about how their families
affected their values. One of the kids wrote a very moving essay about his
grandparents and their Holocaust experience. Another kid,
 whose parents were Viet-Nam refugees, wrote about that and about how
traditional Confucian family values affected his life.
My daughter wrote about US -- she wrote about early childhood experiences,
church, how we had taken her with us on church outings, how I took her with
me when I was working at the Food Bank, and how this affected her view of our
responsibility to others. It was (I must say) a pretty good essay, expressing
her (Christian) religious values. She got an A, but did not tell me about it.
Her teacher showed it to me later.



Subject: Re:<<Generic
Christianity>>?
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 13:35 EST
From: MmMadBroad
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006806f5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Friends -- the last post was not a new poster, it was me, Ard Eine --
posting by mistake under a friend's screen name -- whose computer I'm
temporarily using. Meant to post under "guest" but didn't push the right
buttons. So don't get mad at her, get mad at me!

-- Ard Eine



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 15:15 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0068424b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

About school prayer, Kevin said:  >>What right do I have to force 29
other kids to stop praying just because it doesn't mean anything to me,
though it may mean everything to the other 29 kids? Is this kind of
self-centeredness the stuff of civilization? Is this what "majority rule"
means?<<

Does the same answer apply to oaths?

Ed



Subject: Re:Indians and their due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 15:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006843e4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin brings up the treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, to evidence his
allegation that the U.S. is a christian nation:

>>Jefferson also made sure that the Indians were educated in generic
Christianity. US Supreme Ct Justice Rehnquist explains:

Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians . . . provided annual cash
support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church . . . . The treaty
stated in part: "And whereas, the greater part of the Tribe have been
baptized and received into the Catholic church, to whch they are much
attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred
dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd  . . .
three hundred dollars to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a
 church." (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US 38, 103)

This was not an "establishment" because no other denomination was excluded by
law.<<

I note that Rehnquist's citing of this disinformation from Mr. Barton
indicates that Rehnquist's views at the time of Wallace v. Jaffree should be
suspect in all regards.  Bet he never quotes that book again.

The history of the Kaskaskia treaty is much more interesting, and less
Christian, than Barton or Kevin lets on.  We built them a church; they gave
us Illinois.  Do Christian governments have any obligation to deal fairly
with other Christians?  Then what does this great hoodwinking of the
Kaskaskias tell us?

Here is an old post of mine to another christian nationalist who was so
convinced that he sent me the full text of the treaty:


Subj:  MW3:  Kaskaskia Treaty
Date:  96-08-30 00:46:59 EDT
From:  EDarr1776       

2.	The second document Matt sent is the transmission to the Senate for
ratification of a treaty between the U.S. and the Kaskaskia Tribe of what is
now Illinois, sent to the Senate on October 31, 1803 (Jefferson's
administration).  Here is a fuller passage than Jason will quote: "And
whereas the greater part of the said tribe have [been] baptised and received
into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States
will give, annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars towards the support
of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the
duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as
possible, in the rudiments of literature.  And the United States will further
give the sum of three hundred dollars, in assist the said [priest?] in th
erection of a church.  The stipulations made in this and the preceding
article, together withthe sum of a hundred and eighty dollars, which is now
paid, or assured to be paid, for the said tribe, for the purpose of providing
some necessary articles and to relieve them from debts, which they have
heretofore contracted, is considered [full?] and ample compensation for the
relinquishment made to the United States, in the first article."

Need I tell you that the tribes relinquished most of Illinois to the U.S.?
And in return, we gave them a priest.  

A.	This is, again, a treaty, not domestic policy.
B.	We may assume the treaty ratified, but there is no evidence of that here.
C.	The tribe was already converted by Father Marquette over a hundred years
earlier, and they asked for a priest to be sent to them.  This request was
honored as a quid pro quo for the relinquishment of lands, not as a general
policy of honoring religion.
D.	One piece of folklore is that there is no Indian treaty the U.S. has not
broken -- just out of curiousity, is this one an exception to that rule?

This is not the treaty that makes the U.S a Xian nation . . . 

[end of old post]

Ed



Subject: Re:Indians and their due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 15:29 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00684516-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>This and two similar treaties were enacted during
Jefferson's administration -- one with the Wyandotte Indians and other tribes
in 1806, and one with the Cherokees in 1807. In 1787, another act of Congress
ordained special lands 'for the sole use of Christian Indians' and reserved
lands for the Moravian Brethren 'for civilizing the Indians and promoting
Christianity' ...Congress extended this act three time during Jefferson's
administration and each time [Jefferson] signed the extension
 into law." (Daniel Driesback, Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty
and the First Amendment, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987, p. 127. [The
Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Peters, Ed.,
(Boston: Little&Brown, 1846) VII: 79 Art III, "A Treaty Between the United
States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians," Dec. 23, 1803; VII:88, Art VI,
"Treaty with the Wyandots, etc.," 1805; VII:102, Art II, "Treaty with the
Cherokees," 1806.)<<

Again I go back to old posts.  These are not new issues, and the history is
open to anyone to read.
Subj:  MW4:
Wyandot tribe
Date:  96-08-30 00:47:50 EDT
From:  EDarr1776       

3.	1817 TREATY WITH WYANDOT TRIBE: The language to which the Xian
Nationalists point is the schedule of landdivisions.  The Wyandots got a
tract 12-miles square (about four townships each 6-miles square, or 144
square miles; remember 640 acres = 1 sq. mile).  There were 144, 640-acre
sections.  One section was reserved for support of a missionary, one for
support of schools, one for support of mechanics.  Two sections each went to
Chief Half-king and his six counsellors.  The rest was divided among members
of the combined Kaskaskia tribe, which included Kaskaskias, Sanduskies, and
other small remnants of formerly large tribes.

A.	This is, again, a treaty, not domestic policy.
B.	We may assume the treaty ratified, but there is no evidence of that here.
C.	To the extent this supports the idea of a Xian nation, it overwhelmingly
supports the idea of a Kaskaskia nation, by some 143 times.  It is a real
grasping at straws to argue this treaty suggests the U.S. should bend to
Biblical law, such a grasp that it would be ludicrous.

Ed



Subject: Re:Indians and their due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 15:30 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00684540-at-3469db67@aol.com>

And as to the Moravian Brothers: 
Subj:  MW5:
Religious instruction
Date:  96-08-30 00:48:39 EDT
From:  EDarr1776       

4.	The Fourth item is a list of expenditures under some un-named act "to
provide for the civilization of the Indian tribes."  Several entries are for
tuition for various members of the Seneca, Cherokee, and other tribes at
boarding schools operated by religious groups.  The tuition is usually
granted directly to the school headmaster, who is sometimes ordained, as the
Rev. J. Morse, sometimes military, as Col. R. J. Meigs who ran the school
operated by the Moravian Church, sometimes neither.

A.	These grants are clearly for educational purposes.  There is no
requirement noted for religious education.  There is no indication these
schools are any different from schools operated by religious groups today,
for the most part.  There is no assertion in the document that these grants
support Christianity directly.  The grants support, directly the education of
Native Americans.
B.	These grants most likely are made under treaty, and do not represent
domestic policy.  That is why they are listed under "Indian Affairs."  These
treaties may be said to represent a quid pro quo paid for peace and lands,
and may not be interpreted as saying the policy of the U.S. was to favor
Christianity.

This spending did not make the U.S. a Xian nation . . .



Subject: Tyranny of the Majority
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 21:41 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0069d22a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed quotes Kevin:

<<About school prayer, Kevin said:  >>What right do I have to force 29 other
kids to stop praying just because it doesn't mean anything to me, though it
may mean everything to the other 29 kids? Is this kind of self-centeredness
the stuff of civilization? Is this what "majority rule" means?<<

and then asks:

<<Does the same answer apply to oaths?

Ed>>

Ed, I'm surprised you didn't challenge Kevin on the "majority rule" question
(although, being a newcomer to this debate, I'm not sure if that hasn't been
dealt with already).  My question to Kevin would take the form of a
challenge:  Why do you suppose the Founders established a Supreme Court, and
even wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place?

"Tyrannies of the Majority" have given mankind far more problems than
dissident minorities ever have.

Jim..



Subject: Re:Indians and their due
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 21:46 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0069d926-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Need I tell you that the tribes relinquished most of Illinois to the
U.S.?
And in return, we gave them a priest.  

A.	This is, again, a treaty, not domestic policy.
B.	We may assume the treaty ratified, but there is no evidence of that here.
C.	The tribe was already converted by Father Marquette over a hundred years
earlier, and they asked for a priest to be sent to them.  This request was
honored as a quid pro quo for the relinquishment of lands, not as a general
policy of honoring religion.
D.	One piece of folklore is that there is no Indian treaty the U.S. has not
broken -- just out of curiousity, is this one an exception to that rule?

This is not the treaty that makes the U.S a Xian nation . . . 

[end of old post]

Ed

Ed... thank you.  In every case you illuminate the whole truth behind Kevin's
theocratic expostulations.  I appreciate it.

Jim..



Subject: Re:Establshmnt of
Denominati
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 23:54 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006a8550-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<<The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government (not the
states) from establishing a national religion, that is, denomination.>>>

If the men who constructed our great constitution had meant *denomination*,
they would have SAID *denomination* and NOT religion!



Subject: Re:Establshmnt of
Denominatn
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 23:57 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006a878d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

First Kevin accurately quotes the following.....

<<<Religion . . . . As used in constitution provisions forbidding the
"establishment of religion," the term means a particular system of faith and
worship recognized and practiced by a particular church, sect, or
denomination. Reynolds v. U.S. 98 U.S. 149, 25 L.Ed. 244; Board of Education
v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 241, 13 Am.Rep. 233.[23] >>>>

Then the slick prevaricator adds a word in the next paragraph.....

<<<Thus, the "establishment" of a "religion" was the establishment of a
particular Christian denomination or sect.>>>

Did you catch that? Here, let me emphasize the prevaricators addition.....

<<<Thus, the "establishment" of a "religion" was the establishment of a
particular *****Christian****** denomination or sect.>>>>

Classic technique of a historical revisionist!



Subject: Re:Times of worship
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 10:53 EST
From: Domiobrien
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006be053-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Anyone may take any oath in any form they please. When I have taken
oath, I take it in the traditional Celtic pagan form: "If I speak not truth,
may the Earth open and swallow me, may the Sea rise up and drown me, may the
Sky fall down upon me." I've heard others at the same court proceedings and
hearings take Christian oaths, and a Wiccan swear by the Lord and Lady, and a
Quaker simply affirm. 
Domi



Subject: Re:Condoms
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 10:58 EST
From: Domiobrien
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006be6dc-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Teen sex, teen pregnancy, teen abortion and teen childbearing are all
declining in the US. Have been for years. In 1957 97 of every thousand girls
15-19 gave birth, In 1996, it was 58 of every thousand. (Here in NH, it was
29 of every thousand).
Domi



Subject: Re:Tyranny of the
Majority
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 13:49 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006c9711-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Avalon9 said:  >>Ed, I'm surprised you didn't challenge Kevin on the
"majority rule" question (although, being a newcomer to this debate, I'm not
sure if that hasn't been dealt with already).  My question to Kevin would
take the form of a challenge:  Why do you suppose the Founders established a
Supreme Court, and even wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first
place?

"Tyrannies of the Majority" have given mankind far more problems than
dissident minorities ever have.<<

I was in a hurry.

I con't phrase the issue any better.  The Bill of Rights is not intended to
protect the majority, except from individual tyranny.  It is in almost all
cases a protection for the minority, "the infidel of every faith," to coin a
phrase.

Ed



Subject: Re:Concerning
DeTocqueville
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 13:59 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006ca0de-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>> [Quoting de Tocqueville]  "On my arrival in the United
States the religious aspect of the country was
the first thing that struck my attention; "

In the lines I omitted, DeT. speaks of this as "the dominion of religion." Is
this how we describe a secular nation?<<

De Tocqueville was contrasting the U.S. with the Christian nations of Europe,
where, if we are to believe him, the "religious aspect" of the countries was
nothing to write home about.  "The dominion of religion" describes a nation
where religious freedom is guaranteed.  That freedom is guaranteed in the
U.S. by a secular government ("render unto Caesar . . .") which is itself
neutral, and guarantees in its constitution that religious belief is the
province of each individual's conscience.

You think it odd that religious freedom allows a flowering of religion?  So
did de Tocqueville -- such a thought ran against the common thought of the
day, that nations needed to be greatly entangled with some church or other.  

The piece is crystal clear.  If one wants a religious people, one grants them
religious freedom.  That was the theory of Madison and Jefferson, and
deTocqueville's observations show that 50 years later the experiment had
confirmed their theory.

So now we have evidence of both systems:  Establishment, which corrupts the
churches and the government; and separation of church and state, which
encourages religion to flourish.   It seems a clear choice, and yet Kevin,
under the guise of serving Christianity, pushes for greater flirting with
establishment.

The NT warns us against following false religions.

Ed



Subject: Virginia Bill of Rights
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 14:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006cb8bd-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>Was Madison at all concerned that Hinduism would be
established as the national religion? Not at all. He feared Anglicanism, or
Presbyterianism, or some other *denomination* of Christians would be declared
the national religion, taxes imposed to support their ecclesiastical orders,
and denominational allegiance required for public officers.

Notice the proposal of GeoMason, "Father of the Bill of Rights":

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular
sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in
preference to others.<<

George Mason?  Madison's old friend and colleague?  I see James Madison's
fingerprints all over that phrase.  Here's how Ralph Ketcham describes it in
*James Madison* (University Press of Virginia 1990), as it occurred in May
1776:

     "Madison did, however, play a key role in one liberalization of the
declaration of rights.  The drafting commitee adopted an article by Mason on
religious freedom which stated that since reason and conviction, not force
and violence, governed belief, 'all men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration
in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience."  Mason
thus expressed the enlightened view  opposing religious persecution widely
current in the Western world, at least since John
 Locke's famous *Letters on Toleration* (first published in 1667).  Madison's
experience at Princeton and his struggle against persecution of Baptists in
Virginia had convinced him that 'toleration' was an invidious concept.  It
was, as Thomas Paine later put it, "not the opposite of intolerance, but  . .
. [sic] the counterfeit of it. Both are despotism.  The one assumes to itself
the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.'
Madison therefore sought to have the noxious
 word stricken from the declaration and to prepare the way for complete
liberty of conscience and separation of church and state in Virginia.
     "When the convention took up the article on religion, Madison apparently
persuaded Patrick Henry to propose that its main clause be changed to read
'all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion]
according to the dictates of Conscience; and therefore that no man or class
of man ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments
or privileges.'  Since this clause, if adopted, would have wiped out the
establishment of the Anglican Church, it alarmed enough
 men to cause its defeat.  Forced to abandon the premature effort at
disestablishment, Madison offered another amendment, declaring that 'all men
are equally entitled to enjoy the free exercise of religion, according to the
dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, Unless
the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are
manifestly endangered.'  This change evidently satisfied the convention, and
on the motion of Pendleton, who probably was glad enough to
 accept a general statement not directly attacking the establishment he
stoutly defended, the key part of Madison's revision was adopted.  The
article thus read:  'That religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and
the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction,
not force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the
free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that
it is the mutual duy of all to practise Christian
 forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.'"
     " . . . The change was crucial, however, because it made liberty of
conscience a substantive right, the inalienable privilege of all men equally,
rather than a dispensation conferred as privilege by established authorities.
Madison made possible complete liberty of belief or unbelief, and the utter
separation of church and state."

(pp. 72-73)

Madison is the champion of religious rights.

Ed



Subject: Re:Denominational Oaths
2
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 14:28 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006cbbc1-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin said of the original Tennessee constitution:  >>Art. VIII, Sec.
II. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and
punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. 
Art. XI, Sec. IV, That no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under this state. 

Most states had similar requirements, often drafted by those who signed the
federal Constitution. Their actions are bafflingly inexplicable by Torcaso
standards, standards which have evolved over generations of transition from a
Christian Theocracy to a Humanist Theocracy. But when the definition of
"religion" held by most in that day is understood, these seemingly
contradictory requirements are intelligible. That definition is shaped by the
culturally-dominant religion of the day, which was not Secular
 Humanism, as in our day, but Christianity. <<

By the sections of the Tennessee constitution quoted above, how can we say
that the religion they favored was not Islam?  We can't. Yet Kevin decides it
should be Christianity . . .

Ed



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 22:16 EST
From: HALSBOOKS
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006f1cb4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

From:  KEVIN4VFT     <<  As a Protestant (for lack of a better label) I
agree that Catholic prayers and bead-countings are pretty hokey. But I don't
have the right -- even if I push myself onto the bench of the US Supreme
Court -- to tell a Catholic School they can't have prayers.
And if I'm an atheist in a protestant town in a protestant county in a
protestant state, and the protestants want to pray during school, I can sit
still and be quiet and respectful. What's wrong with that? What right do I
have to force 29 other kids to stop praying just because it doesn't mean
anything to me, though it may mean everything to the other 29 kids? Is this
kind of self-centeredness the stuff of civilization? Is this what "majority
rule" means?>> 

If you were the lone atheist you would be picked on and bullied and
intimidated into doing what your classmates were doing - praying. I wouldn't
want that for any of my kids in any shape or form.
Those who want to pray can do it at home, in the mornings, evenings, on the
weekends in churches, but under no circumstances should prayer be allowed in
public schools. If you want you child to learn nonsense like "Creationism"
instead of evolution then by all means send him to that school and
consequently indoctrinate him in phony beliefs and ideas, but keep that
nonsense 
out of the public school system. We are not talking about "majority rules" -
we are talking about protecting minority views and beliefs.  

KEVIN4VFT <<The answer, I keep saying, is to abolish government schools. Let
every religion have their own schools and stop putting a gun to their heads
and forcing them to cough up for schools they don't like. "Liberals," of
course, would never hear of such "liberty.">>

Apparently you are a right wing religious extremist who wants to impose your
religion and your beliefs on the rest of us. You are the opponent of liberty,
trying to force all the kids into religious schools. Every religion already
has it's own schools, didn't you know that? You and your type are enemies of
religious freedom. 



Subject: Re:Tyranny of the
Majority
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 23:51 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006f9ed1-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<<I con't phrase the issue any better.  The Bill of Rights is not
intended to protect the majority, except from individual tyranny.  It is in
almost all cases a protection for the minority, "the infidel of every faith,"
to coin a phrase.>>>

Ah yes Ed, but the Bill of Rights is about to be turnd on its ears! When the
RFA is ratified forget having rights in this nation. It looks like the House
will pas it with the super-majority of 2/3. The states are nearly guaranteed
to ratify as well. The only place to stop this anti-freedom monstrosity is
the Senate!

I hope there is still a United States of America in another year because if
the RFA is ratified, it will no longer exist IMHO.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 23:54 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-006fa156-at-3469db67@aol.com>

HALSBOOKS:>>>Those who want to pray can do it at home, in the mornings,
evenings, on the weekends in churches, but under no circumstances should
prayer be allowed in public schools.<<<

Hold on HAL.  If children want to pray in school they have every right too.
Just so long as said prayer does not disrupt the class, or the schools main
business, education.  The prayer must also be by the students own accord and
be neither encouraged nor discouraged by school officials.  Anything other
than that would be a violation of the child's first amendment rights.  
Everyone might, or might not be surprised to know that this is exactly what
the supreme court's view on the subject of prayer is as well.

                                                    Have a "positive" day = )
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 01:18 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00700264-at-3469db67@aol.com>

HALSBOOKS:>>>Those who want to pray can do it at home, in the mornings,
evenings, on the weekends in churches, but under no circumstances should
prayer be allowed in public schools.<<<

LTs responds:

Hold on HAL.  If children want to pray in school they have every right too.
Just so long as said prayer does not disrupt the class, or the schools main
business, education.  The prayer must also be by the students own accord and
be neither encouraged nor discouraged by school officials.  Anything other
than that would be a violation of the child's first amendment rights.  
Everyone might, or might not be surprised to know that this is exactly what
the supreme court's view on the subject of prayer is as well.>>

LT is exactly right.  And many school districts have run afoul of this
premise.  I don't know what is so hard to understand about such a simple
idea.

Jim..



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 03:16 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007051d6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<As a Protestant (for lack of a better label) I agree that Catholic
prayers and bead-countings are pretty hokey. But I don't have the right --
even if I push myself onto the bench of the US Supreme Court -- to tell a
Catholic School they can't have prayers. >>
 
No, because Catholic schools are PRIVATE schools. They can teach any religion
they want. I'm a Protestant who went to Catholic schools, got a very good
education and thoroughly enjoyed the experience, "bead-counting" (a somewhat
snide reference to the Rosary, I assume) and all. 

<<And if I'm an atheist in a protestant town in a protestant county in a
protestant state, and the protestants want to pray during school, I can sit
still and be quiet and respectful. What's wrong with that? What right do I
have to force 29 other kids to stop praying just because it doesn't mean
anything to me, though it may mean everything to the other 29 kids? Is this
kind of self-centeredness the stuff of civilization? Is this what "majority
rule" means?>>

When my parents sent me to Catholic schools, they knew what they were buying
into, and accepted it. But parents who send their kids to PUBLIC schools are
not necessarily buying into any particular religion. Why should it be imposed
on their kids? Simply because the majority want it? But one reason we have a
Constitution is so that we don't have  majority opinion trampling all over
minority opinion, simply because it is the majority.  The Bill of Rights is
not something that is particularly majoritarian
 in spirit, and might well not pass if submitted to majority vote today. 

By the way, one reason Catholic schools were started in this country was so
that they could get away from Protestant (KJV) Bible readings. At a time when
Protestants were the majority.

BTW, there is absolutely no legal bar to those 29 Protestant kids from
praying all they want in school,  on their own, during their own time. They
can do it as individuals, or in groups, if they wish.  



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 12:04 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0071f76e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS: >>>Hold on HAL.  If children want to pray in school they have
every right too.  Just so long as said prayer does not disrupt the class, or
the schools main business, education.  The prayer must also be by the
students own accord and be neither encouraged nor discouraged by school
officials.  Anything other than that would be a violation of the child's
first amendment rights.  
Everyone might, or might not be surprised to know that this is exactly what
the supreme court's view on the subject of prayer is as well.>>

Avalon9: >>>LT is exactly right.  And many school districts have run afoul of
this premise.  I don't know what is so hard to understand about such a simple
idea.<<<

Well the percentage of schools and districts that have violated these rules
is low.  Some people like Pat (The older I get, the more I want Armageddon)
Robertson hype these few cases as some "liberal conspiracy", or "anti
Christian bigotry" (hype like this brings in more money).  99% are just
overly anxious school personnel and board members trying not to get in to
trouble.  It's usually just plain bad judgement on their part.  Most are
resolved with just a simple consultation with lawyers.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 12:50 EST
From: HALSBOOKS
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007233b0-at-3469db67@aol.com>

From:  LTsurviver      
HALSBOOKS:>>>Those who want to pray can do it at home, in the mornings,
evenings, on the weekends in churches, but under no circumstances should
prayer be allowed in public schools.<<<
<<Hold on HAL.  If children want to pray in school they have every right too.
Just so long as said prayer does not disrupt the class, or the schools main
business, education.  The prayer must also be by the students own accord and
be neither encouraged nor discouraged by school officials.  Anything other
than that would be a violation of the child's first amendment rights.  
Everyone might, or might not be surprised to know that this is exactly what
the supreme court's view on the subject of prayer is as well.>>

You are right. I erred in my statement.  A child can pray, silently, to
himself at any time, any place, even in school if he wants. What I should
have said was that there should be no compulsory or teacher-led prayers in
the public school system. Coercion into any religious belief system should
have no place in the public school system. 



Subject: Re:KEVIN4VFT
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 14:21 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0072a1dd-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I agree--- Catholic schools have the right to say any prayer they want
at any time.  My point was that prayer in schools, any school, quickly
becomes a worthless habit.



Subject: Prayer Life
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 15:06 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0072d363-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<< . . . prayer in schools, any school, quickly becomes a worthless
habit. . . >>

It depends on how it's done. 
In the Catholic schools of my girlhood, the nuns did everything they could to
make sure it didn't become merely "habit" or "rote."  You can do that in a
religious school, where everyone who attends expects religious instruction as
an ongoing commitment, part of the reason the parents sent the kids there to
be begin with.
In public schools, I'm afraid, mandated, school-organized prayer rapidly
becomes part of that meaningless "generic Christianity" that was discussed
earlier. I have seen instances of "prayer" in public settings, such as city
council meetings. I think prayer of this sort contains many of the elements
of a substantive prayer life.
Prayer should not be some formulaic ritual -- but an ongoing conversation
with God. I don't think the public schools can, or should be, expected to
provide that.
My concern (as a Christian) about school-sponsored prayer in the public
schools is due at least as much to my concern for the undiluted practice of
my own Christian faith as to a concern for the religious freedom of others.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 22:45 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0074b779-at-3469db67@aol.com>

LTS, <<Everyone might, or might not be surprised to know that this is
exactly what the supreme court's view on the subject of prayer is as well.>>

With this continued attitude (and others)    Y O U     L O O S E  !!!!



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 22:53 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0074c1c7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Avlon9  <<LT is exactly right.  And many school districts have run
afoul of this premise.  I don't know what is so hard to understand about such
a simple idea.>>

Following the wron man leads to destruction.   Early schold in our nation
prayed.  Many taught reading by use of the Bible.  

NOW     With the laws against prayer, the Bible, the Ten Commandment, there
is increased crime, prostitution, AIDS, homosexuality, and many other
problems blamed on everything but the truth that WE NEED THE BIBLE, PRAYER,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS back in schools and children NEED to be taught
TRUTHFULLY WHAT IT ALL MEANS.

Jews, Muslims, Christians and all of decent mind agree.  That is a mighty
majority.

By the way, has it ever occured to you just WHY people are being tortured, in
China and other nations in slave labor, having hands and limbs cut off,
chained, beaten, crucified?  IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BASICS OF (and I repeat)
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the BIBLE,  PRAYER, OPEN WORSHIP.




Subject: Re:KEVIN4VFT & c WHY
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 22:57 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0074c67e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<< worthless habit>> ACCORDING TO c WHY.    

Prayer is never a worthless habit.  Try it for one solid week while you study
the book of JOHN in the New Testament.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 01:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00756fb5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg said:  >>By the way, has it ever occured to you just WHY people
are being tortured, in China and other nations in slave labor, having hands
and limbs cut off, chained, beaten, crucified?  IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BASICS
OF (and I repeat)   THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the BIBLE,  PRAYER, OPEN WORSHIP.<<

I didn't realize the 10 commandments required torture, slave labor,
amputation, fetters, etc.  Are you arguing for or against the Bible, ZKMeg?
You think this is positive?

Ed



Subject: Re:ZKMeg
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 06:30 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0075c886-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<< worthless habit>> ACCORDING TO c WHY>>>  Since you probably did not
read what I said ZKM, I'll repeat it.    

I went to Catholic schools ( a long time ago) and we prayed all the time.  We
prayed at least 10 times a day.  We prayed for everything from world peace to
victory in a football game.  We prayed for better weather, for John Kennedy,
for the Pope, for better grades-------- you name it-- we prayed for it.   Hay
gang-- it was a worthless exercise.  It was simply something you did out of
habit.  Nobody thought about it, nobody gave it any meaning, nobody did
anything except go through the motions.  It had no
 more significance than brushing your teeth in the morning, leaving a
building or going to the jon.  You just did it.



Subject: Re: Ard Eine
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 06:35 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0075c9e3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>>>It depends on how it's done. 
In the Catholic schools of my girlhood, the nuns did everything they could to
make sure it didn't become merely "habit" or "rote."<<<<<<

Good point.  Understand that I graduated from a Catholic high school in 1964,
before any of the Vatican II reforms reached the "streets" so to speak.  I
know Catholic schools have changed for the better since I attended.    



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 09:48 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00764a27-at-3469db67@aol.com>

First I wrote:

Avlon9  <<LT is exactly right.  And many school districts have run afoul of
this premise.  I don't know what is so hard to understand about such a simple
idea.>>

then Z responds:

Following the wron man leads to destruction.   Early schold in our nation
prayed.  Many taught reading by use of the Bible.>>

and your point?  Z, I suggest you go back and review previous posts by Ed
Darrell on this subject.  He has literally shredded the argument you are
making.  In some folders it is appropriate to "jump in the middle", however,
when there is an evidenciary thread being developed, it DOES help to go back
and read what has gone before.

NOW     With the laws against prayer, the Bible, the Ten Commandment, there
is increased crime, prostitution, AIDS, homosexuality, and many other
problems blamed on everything but the truth that WE NEED THE BIBLE, PRAYER,
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS back in schools and children NEED to be taught
TRUTHFULLY WHAT IT ALL MEANS.>>

see above.

Jews, Muslims, Christians and all of decent mind agree.  That is a mighty
majority.

By the way, has it ever occured to you just WHY people are being tortured, in
China and other nations in slave labor, having hands and limbs cut off,
chained, beaten, crucified?  IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BASICS OF (and I repeat)
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the BIBLE,  PRAYER, OPEN WORSHIP.>>

it has EVERYTHING to do with political power and control... and NOTHING to do
with strict adherence to any Christian doctrine.  In fact, what is going on
in China sounds like a modern day version of the Spanish Inquisition to me.
Which is the solidest reason I can think of to keep religion and religious
organizations out of political life.

Jim...




Subject: School Prayer
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 10:05 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00765c5a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg>> NOW     With the laws against prayer, the Bible, the Ten
Commandment, ...<<

CorumB> Meg, there are no such laws in the U.S. There ARE laws against
establishment of religion by the government, which address government
sponsorship of the items you listed. The laws are *not* AGAINST prayer, the
Bible, nor the Ten Commandments, but are FOR religious neutrality. Kids can
pray in school (non-disruptively, of course) - but the principal can't get on
the intercom and lead a morning prayer, nor can a teacher lead a class in
prayer. A student can bring a Bible, Ten Commandments and all,
 to school to read on their own time.  If your kids were in a school where
all the faculty were Satanists, would you want them to be leading your kids
in prayers to Satan? No? Then, to paraphrase a great moral teaching, do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. 

The government and its agents (such as public school teachers and
principals), acting in that capacity, must remain neutral regarding religion
in their acts. Allow kids to freely exercise their right to pray to whatever
deities they choose (if any), without coercion from classmates and without
the government establishing what is orthodox in religious matters.  Religious
liberty doesn't mean that the majority are free to force others to kneel to
their god.
The separation of Church and State is good for both, and avoids the religious
strife that besets other countries.

As Ed alluded to in an earlier post, Jesus said to render unto Caesar that
which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Note, too, that the
Bible teaches believers how to pray, in humble and inconspicuous communion
with God - and rebukes those who seek to pray loudly and openly to be seen of
men.   Ask yourself which camp you're in.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 12:02 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00770119-at-3469db67@aol.com>

t's usually just plain bad judgement on their part.  Most are resolved
with just a simple consultation with lawyers<<

How far left can you go without falling into the abyss?



Subject: Re:Freedom of worship
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 12:11 EST
From: TangoLdr
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00770ca2-at-3469db67@aol.com>

KEVIN4VFT: I need to jump out of "Lurk" mode to ask a question. It
seems to me that most of  your quoted statements from the various state
constituions and your own Theocracy statements, would lead me to belive that
your stand is that Relligious Freedom, and protection under the "Law" is only
to be applied to Christians. All others are not covered by Constitution, The
Bill of Rights,or even secular law.
Am I wrong on this observation?

Randy



Subject: Re:Bye for now
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 12:14 EST
From: TangoLdr
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00770fcf-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Dern, missed him!  :) Oh well caathc him in 2 weeks I guess.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 13:44 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00778f08-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg asks....

<<<How far left can you go without falling into the abyss?>>>

I answer....

It is obvious to see that ZKMeg has believed the propaganda of the right for
so long she can no longer think rationally, IMHO. The urban myths about
school children being denied their religious fredoms in school have been
shown to be the lies that they are time and again.

ZKMeg is so far to the right she cannot see she is in the Abyss she claims
the left is dropping into, IMHO.



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 14:02 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0077a345-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>How far left can you go without falling into the abyss?<<<

Actually ZK, I'm very middle of the road. 

                                                      Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                    LTS



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 15:13 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0077fb1e-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg said:  >>By the way, has it ever occured to you just WHY people
are being tortured, in China and other nations in slave labor, having hands
and limbs cut off, chained, beaten, crucified?  IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BASICS
OF (and I repeat)   THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the BIBLE,  PRAYER, OPEN WORSHIP.>>

Really?  Then what does that say about the Dalai Lama and his followers?
They've been tortured and murdered in greater numbers, for a lot longer.
Does that mean God prefers them?

It is useful to use just the facts in debate.  Then you don't have to make up
more stories to try to make things match reality.

Ed



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 15:15 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0077fd97-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMeg asked:  >>How far left can you go without falling into the
abyss?<<

All the way to heaven.

But what other abyss could compete with the one ZKMeg is in?  Avoiding that
one is motivation . . . 

Ed



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 20:48 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00798c8a-at-3469db67@aol.com>

EDarr1776      <<I didn't realize the 10 commandments required torture,
slave labor, amputation, fetters, etc.  Are you arguing for or against the
Bible, ZKMeg?  You think this is positive?>>

Are you being trite?  Trying to be "funny"?  Or do you recognize the terrible
things going on in the world toward Christians?  Giving MFN to China is bad
enought but for our State Department to deny sanction to these persecuted
people when requested is unconscienable.

I hasten to say that you should read accounts (and there are none in the
local media) of the horrors in countries like Arabia, the mid-east, some
African nations, China.  Men, women, children.  Beaten, starved, hot oil
poured on them then pealed.  One woman caught praying had a cattle prod
placed in her mouth.  There are many more type of hideous tortures goin on.
Check it out , you seem to have sources --- that is, if you are truly
interested.






Subject: Re:School Prayer
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 20:50 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00798f99-at-3469db67@aol.com>

CorumB       Check with attorneys who are fighting school boards.
Children ARE being denied.



Subject: Re:School Prayer
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 23:34 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007a4509-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZKMug says>>>

  Check with attorneys who are fighting school boards.  Children ARE being
denied.


I answer>>>

Check with the court decisions. In every case where children have their
rights denied the court stands up for them!



Subject: Re:Chuck Why
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 1997 02:04 EST
From: ZKMeg
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007ad65c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I know what you mean about the Catholic schools.  I have had friends
who have attended them.

God requires our obedience.  Whether we pray once a day or whatever amount it
is to be from the hear.  

Prayer MUST NOT be legalized into ritualistic times when hearts are not
toward God    These prayers, therefore, are not from the heart.

God has given us free will.  The Bible is our guide.  I pray you will at
least try to study one prayerfully.  It does make a difference, you know.

ZKM



Subject: Re:Catholics and School
Pray
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 1997 08:51 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007b84de-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZK  writes:

<<Are you being trite?  Trying to be "funny"?  Or do you recognize the
terrible things going on in the world toward Christians?  Giving MFN to China
is bad enought but for our State Department to deny sanction to these
persecuted people when requested is unconscienable.>>

I respond:  

Do you include in your "terrible things" the organized terrorism going on in
Bosnia BY Christians against Muslims?  You know the sort of things they are
doing, like policies of "ethnic cleansing" and sanctioned rape and
brutalization.  Or, are we to overlook the terrible things that Christians
do, and only wring our hands when the same fate befalls Christians?  Should
we not give sanction to ANY group that is being persecuted, whether they be
Christians or not?

Jim..



Subject: Re:School Prayer
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 1997 08:54 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007b8714-at-3469db67@aol.com>

ZK writes:

<< Check with attorneys who are fighting school boards.  Children ARE being
denied.>>

I respond:

When it happens, and when its brought to light, in EVERY case, often with the
help of the ACLU, the right of the child to pray privately has been upheld.
Religious freedom is alive and well.

Jim..



Subject: MFN for China
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 1997 14:58 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-007d360c-at-3469db67@aol.com>

For the record----- MFN status for China was first granted by Reagan.
All of you Clinton haters need to be reminded of that,



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 14:35 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001301f5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I repost the bulk of our earlier correspondence to save the Gentle
Reader from having to scroll back two weeks to find the original.  Please
read closely:

Subj:  Re:1844 case
Date:  97-10-27 16:25:30 EST
From:  KEVIN4VFT       

ED:
Kevin said:  >>In 1844 a Frenchman left a will bequeathing a substantial sum
to a city to build a school which would NOT teach the Bible. Before the US
Supreme Court, Daniel Webster argued against the will from Jesus' command,
"Let the children come to me and do not try to stop them." The US Supreme
Court ruled that the will could not be enforced because this is a Christian
nation and morality is best taught from the New Testament. This case
reflected the view of the vast majority of the Founders, and of
 the American people. The modern post-Everson Court has not followed the
Constitution, but has simply imposed its own Secular Humanist agenda on the
country.<<

Why does this not have the holy ring of truth to it?

KC:
Because you are biased, prejudiced, closed-minded, and you have an axe to
grind. If you want to argue that secular schools are better than Christian
schools, fine. I'll argue. But your argument is that the Framers of the
Constitution INTENDED to eliminate Christianity from the public sphere, and
this is historically untenable. All historical evidence is filtered through
your presuppositional grid.

ED:
Tell me, Kevin, does the Supreme Court of the U.S. often get involved in will
cases?  

KC:
The range of cases heard by the US Sup Ct in the early 1800's is vastly
different from cases heard today. Congress has limited jurisdiction of the
Court because the absense of Christianity from our culture has crowded the
courts.

ED:
Please give us the case.  This one I gotta read for myself.

KC:
Will you?
I already know what you're going to say Ed: "This is a wills case." And
everything the Court said about Christianity will be ignored, like you do
with the Holy Trinity case.

I really don't think you'll read it even if you go to the library. It's a
very, very long case, and you'[ll be bored to tears reading all the **Bible
verses** that Daniel Webster cited in his argument before the Court (which
lasted HOURS, BTW).

Well, OK, I'll give you one more chance:

Vidal v. Girard's Executors 43 US 126, 11 L.Ed 205 (1844)

[Now see next post]



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 14:50 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001312f6-at-3469db67@aol.com>

I asked earlier:  >>Why does this not have the holy ring of truth to
it?

KC responded tartly:
Because you are biased, prejudiced, closed-minded, and you have an axe to
grind. If you want to argue that secular schools are better than Christian
schools, fine. I'll argue. But your argument is that the Framers of the
Constitution INTENDED to eliminate Christianity from the public sphere, and
this is historically untenable. All historical evidence is filtered through
your presuppositional grid. .. .. ..
Well, OK, I'll give you one more chance:
Vidal v. Girard's Executors 43 US 126, 11 L.Ed 205 (1844)<<

Kevin, might it be that the case doesn't have the ring of truth to it because
you misrepresented it?  In your original post you said that the Frenchman
Girard's will was not upheld.  You said, "The US Supreme Court ruled that the
will could not be enforced because this is a Christian nation and morality is
best taught from the New Testament."

But that's the opposite of what the Court really said.  The will WAS upheld.
I quote from the headnotes:  "The exclusion of all ecclesiastics,
missionaries, and ministers of any sort from holding or exercising any
station or duty in a college, or even visiting the same; or the limitation of
the instruction to be given to the scholars, to pure morality, general
benevolence, a love of truth, sobriety, and industry; are not so derogatory
and hostile to  the Christian religion as to make a devise for the
 foundation of such a college void according to the constitution and laws of
Pennsylvania."

Among the issues was how far was the reach of English common law, and whether
Christianity was so much a part of common law that it reached to Pennsylvania
and prohibited an anti-religious devise.  The Court said, finally, "Looking
to the objections, therefore, in a mere juridical view, which is the only one
in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is
nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and
restrictions contained therein, which are
 inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy
of the State of Pennyslvania."

Not only was the will upheld, but the court seems to approve the right of
Christians and all other Pennsylvanians, and therefore all other Americans,
to tell clerics to talk a flying leap at a the moon.

What sort of a christian nation is it that makes it fine to tell the
Christian leaders to bugger off?

Finally, Kevin, what was the source that told you the incorrect holding of
the case?  Please let us know, so that we might avoid it in the future.  You
might be well advised to handle that book as Col. Renault handled the bottle
of Vichy Water in the last scence of Casablanca.  The book made you of this
case, as Rick was about the waters of Casablanca, "misinformed."

Ed



Subject: Re:MFN for China
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 15:46 EST
From: Leavenwrth
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00135b00-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>MFN status for China was first granted by Reagan.  All of you
Clinton haters need to be reminded of that<<<

It was wrong then...it's wrong now.  What's your point?  That if somebody did
something wrong in the past, there's not requirement to do the right thing
today?



Subject: Re:1844 case -- error
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 20:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0014afcf-at-3469db67@aol.com>

That should have been ". . . to TAKE a flying leap at the moon."



Subject: Re:Leavenwrth
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 21:13 EST
From: ChuckWhy
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0014ea6b-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>>>It was wrong then...it's wrong now.  What's your point?  That if
somebody did something wrong in the past, there's not requirement to do the
right thing today?<<<<<

Agreed!!!!  Yet I find it very curious why so many of the so called
Christians, Pat Robert$on, Jerry Falwell, Dobson, etc., in this nation were
so silent about China UNTIL Clinton became president.  



Subject: Re:MFN for China
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 21:29 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001501f3-at-3469db67@aol.com>

MFN status for China is COMPLETELY based upon the greed of money. This
is why China will ALWAYS retain MFN status.

Witchward, who despises it when ANY govt. takes away ANYBODY'S religious
freedom



Subject: Re:Theocracy and Fascism
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 22:51 EST
From: Katachumen
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00156a1d-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>"The whole history of this nation." Most secularists are utterly
ignorant of the "whole history" of this nation, especially when it comes to
the influence of Christianity upon it.

First off, the "history of this nation" begins in 1776. Previous to that the
United States did not exist (only English colonies did). 
Secondly, I am not a "Secularist". I am a Christian, in the Orthodox Church,
which I believe is the true Church, untainted by the latter day rationalistic
heresies of the West (of which this Reconstructionist stuff is but the most
recent example).
- Jon (AKA "UsSol")



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 23:02 EST
From: Katachumen
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00157658-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>Christianity even condemned as basic a health care need as bathing as
"sin".  Daily bathing --- which the  ancient Greeks and Romans practiced ---
was not to become the norm again until the early 1900s. So to say; the time
span that Christianity ruled the world stunk, would not be a stretch by any
means.

This is a gross (OK, pun intended!) exaggeration. Although some monastic
orders regarded not bathing as a valid form of asceticism, Christianity never
condemned bath-taking. (Don't forget the phrase "Cleanliness is next to
Godliness"!) In Western Europe during the Middle Ages the problem was not
religious bigotry, but the lack of hot running water that kept people from
bathing frequently, a situation that persisted until the end of the 19th
century. Try camping out, or living in a rsutic cabin, in the
 winter time and see how often you feel like bathing! However, in the East,
the Roman custom of frequent bathing continued under the Christian Byzantine
Empire where in the major cities at least there were public baths with hot
water available.



Subject: Re: the Cold War
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 23:13 EST
From: Katachumen
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00158370-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Good grief, can anyone really believe that (European) Communism is
doing anything anywhere but rotting away on the compost heap of history?
There are democratic governments, freely elected, in most of the ex-Soviet
empire! East Germany has ceased to exist and is united with West Germany--
the Berlin Wall has been reduced to utter rubble and there are new buildings
going up over where it stood. Poland, Czech and Hungary are joining NATO. The
Russian army has disintegrated to the point where it couldn't
 even put down an insurrection by a gang of mountain bandits in Chechnya. The
government of Russia has passed a law to protect the Russian Church which the
Communists used to persecute. So what if no one ever "de-communized" Russia?
We didn't boot George III and the monarchists out of Britain either, but the
Revolutionary War still ended in an American victory.
Apparently some people are so bummed that the Cold War ended with a whimper
rather than nuclear Armageddon that they can't bare to admit that it ended!



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 23:31 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00159cb5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed hammers the point home:

<<
What sort of a christian nation is it that makes it fine to tell the
Christian leaders to bugger off?

Finally, Kevin, what was the source that told you the incorrect holding of
the case?  Please let us know, so that we might avoid it in the future.  You
might be well advised to handle that book as Col. Renault handled the bottle
of Vichy Water in the last scence of Casablanca.  The book made you of this
case, as Rick was about the waters of Casablanca, "misinformed."

Ed>>

shall we round up the usual suspects?  :)

Jim...



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 23:56 EST
From: LTsurviver
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0015bad5-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>>This is a gross (OK, pun intended!) exaggeration. Although some
monastic orders regarded not bathing as a valid form of asceticism,
Christianity never condemned bath-taking. (Don't forget the phrase
"Cleanliness is next to Godliness"!)<<<

You need to study your history a bit.  That catch phrase was an advertising
gimmick/public health message in the late 19th to early 20th century, used by
both doctors and soap companies. It was hardly a church inspired phrase.
Before that bathing was something quite rare and considered distasteful.  

>>>In Western Europe during the Middle Ages the problem was not religious
bigotry, but the lack of hot running water that kept people from bathing
frequently, a situation that persisted until the end of the 19th century.<<<

That's awfully funny you should mention that.  The technology to create such
plumbing existed in both Rome and Greece before the Christian era (dark
ages).  All technology and practices (such as daily bathing) from those
civilizations was considered "sinful", and therefore quashed by the church.
The history clearly has the early Christian church denouncing frequent
bathing as sinful because it required nudity, and was thought to inspire
lust. The Christian church denounced bathing in a kneejerk reaction
 to the stories of Roman bath houses.   From the 16th through late 19th
century the failure to practice daily bathing had more to do with the lack of
tradition in the practice, but the lack of such tradition was clearly set by
the Christian church.

>>>Try camping out, or living in a rsutic cabin, in the winter time and see
how often you feel like bathing!<<<

Man has had the ability to create hot water for thousands of years.  The
Romans had plumbing long before the Christian era (dark ages).  I have camped
out quite often in Yosemite in the quite cold weather of spring and fall, and
have never failed to get a hot bath.  All that's needed is fire, a kettle,
and a portable tub.  Nothing more.

>>>However, in the East, the Roman custom of frequent bathing continued under
the Christian Byzantine Empire where in the major cities at least there were
public baths with hot water available.<<<

Ah but here you compare apples to oranges.  The Byzantine Empire was always
looked down upon by the western European Christians including the Roman
Catholic Church.  They were considered to be wild and quite unchristian by
them.  Personally I think it was a beautiful culture and it's a shame that
they were destroyed by the east.  

However, in Rome, and everywhere else the practice of bathing was frowned
upon by the church.
I stand by my statement.

                                                     Have a "positive" day =
)
                                                                   LTS



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Fri, Nov 7, 1997 09:16 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0016f0c9-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>shall we round up the usual suspects?  :)

Jim...<<

This looks like the beginning of a long, beautiful friendship!

;-)



Subject: Re:1844 case
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 08:00 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001bf556-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed responds:

>>shall we round up the usual suspects?  :)

Jim...<<

This looks like the beginning of a long, beautiful friendship!

;-) >>

Indeed!

Jim..  :)



Subject: Re: Bathing
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 10:09 EST
From: Katachumen
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001c7313-at-3469db67@aol.com>

>>You need to study your history a bit.  

I have. Bathing was never considered a sin by the Church as a whole. (As I
posted some monastics regarded filthiness as a form of asceticism.) Nor is it
true that people "never" bathed between the fall of Rome and the 19th
century. Public baths did in fact exist in Western Europe, but they were
expensive and most people could only afford to use them on special occasions.
Which brings us to the question of technology. Yes, plumbing technology did
exist in the Middle Ages, however the economic wherewithal
 to make it cheap and abundant did not. The situation is somewhat similar to
that of the Third World today: certainly the tecnology exists to bring modern
sanitation to the slums of, say, Rio or Lagos, but the money is lacking.
Also, the connection between baths and sin was an empirical one since
prostitutes and other sex offenders tended to hang out at the baths, much as
such low lifes do at public rest areas today. The moral objection was not to
cleanliness per se, but to the sorts of things that went
 on at the baths.
Finally, in regards to the East, the Byzantine Empire may have fallen but
Eastern Christianity did not. It's alive and well, and exists right here in
America (I know, because I'm Orthodox myself). Too often I see people making
statements about what "Christianity" does or does not teach, do etc. and yet
the poster is thinking only of Western forms of Christianity. Generic
statements about Christian belief and practice should never be made unless
the Eastern half of the faith is given proper consideration
 as well.



Subject: Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/97
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 14:19 EST
From: Sundiii
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001da978-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Some Christians are such zealots they shouldn't even call themselves
Christian.  Let's just eliminate all churches & religions & states, unions,
nations, and even all public schools.  Christians are the most hard-hearted &
hard-headed people on earth.

   11/8/97 -- "Assistant Principal Michael Chandler is now shunned by
students & once-friendly adults because he filed a lawsuit that resulted in
last week's federal court order restricting prayer in Alabama's public
schools, where many youngsters wear cloth bracelets with the letters "WWJD"
-- for "What Would Jesus Do?"

   Jesus would have said "Good for Michael Chandler.  Stop acting like
fools!"

   "Rhonda Weathers said the ruling 'stinks' & she doesn't even like Chandler
being around her first-grade daughter Jessica at Valley Head School.  'He
doesn't believe there's a God' she said!

   Rhonda Weathers is too self-righteous, & very misguided.  She hates her
neighbors which isn't Christian.  The Royal Law in James 2.8 says "Love your
neighbor as yourself."

   "God is not the author of confusion."  So to eliminate the question of
"separation of church & state" just eliminate both churches & states.  Also
eliminate public education which is mostly child care so parents can be
slaves at their low-paying JOBS, and since public education is paid for with
DEVILISH taxation & devilish lotteries.  

   People should worship however they want in their own home.  Narrow-minded
people say "We have to allow prayer in schools."  



Subject: Re:Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/9
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 16:04 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001e0fd7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Sundii writes:
<<People should worship however they want in their own home.  Narrow-minded
people say "We have to allow prayer in schools." >>

Sundii, I don't think I'm being narrow-minded when I say that prayer IS
allowed in schools, and should be. But there is nothing in the Federal
court's injunction in the Alabama school prayer case that prevents praying in
school.

Per today's (Saturday November 8, 1997) New York Times: Judge DeMent's
injunction "does not prohibit private, personal prayer, the wearing of
religious symbols or clothing, the use of religious texts in class for
academic purposes, voluntary expressions of religious beliefs by students in
school assignments, or participation in religious activities during
noninstructional time."

What the injunction does prohibit is the following: "school-organized or
officially sanctioned religious activity in the classroom, including vocal
prayer, readings of the Scripture, devotional discussions, and distribution
of religious materials . . . also publicly broadcast prayers and invocations
at commencement exercises, assemblies, and sporting events." (Note that there
is nothing that prevents individual students from praying all they want at
such functions.)

As a Christian parent, this is something I can happily live with. There is
plenty of scope for religious freedom here --  for the practice and free
expression by my children of their religious beliefs, without imposing such
beliefs on those students who may not share in such beliefs. Under the rules
enunciated by Judge DeMent, Christ is hardly being "excluded from the
schools."

And also as a Christian parent, I would not particularly want my children to
be instructed in, or to participate in, school-organized or -sanctioned
religious exercises at their public school. Such exercises would, inevitably,
be either sectarian, or they would be of the "generic Christianity" variety.
I do believe in ecumenicism, to an extent, but I want to be the one who
determines to what degree my children are involved in religious activities
other than the ones of our own church.
 



Subject: Re: Bathing
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 16:21 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001e1def-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Katechumen writes: <<Bathing was never considered a sin by the Church
as a whole. (As I posted some monastics regarded filthiness as a form of
asceticism.) Nor is it true that people "never" bathed between the fall of
Rome and the 19th century. Public baths did in fact exist in Western Europe,
but they were expensive and most people could only afford to use them on
special occasions. >>

How did this thread get into separation of church and state? I've been away a
bit, I must have missed something. 

I'm not sure bathing was that uncommon in the Middle Ages, at least among the
upper classes. Reading medieval romances, you run across scenes where the
noble knight is bathing, with the beautiful damsel of the castle handing him
the towels as he emerges. The assumption seems to be that bathing is
something you would do normally, certainly after a hard day fighting giants
or dragons. There's no tone of condemnation.

I'm sure the lower classes didn't bathe nearly as much, but I don't think it
was because of church sanctions. More likely from just the general social
conditions. I don't think poor people have ever had as much access to bathing
as upper class people, do you?

I cannot give a specific source, alas, but I remember reading that for some
reason (I can't remember what it was), the incidence of bathing declined in
Western Europe AFTER the Middle Ages. In the late16th and 17th century, even
upper class people seem to have bathed very little. They used perfumes
instead. And one of the reasons men started wearing wigs in the mid-17th
century was that they started shaving their heads or cut their hair very
short, to keep the lice down. Yuck. The women must have been
 positively infested. (Nor was there much of a premium on sanitation. There
are narratives of the court at Versailles which describe the common practice
of courtiers urinating in the hallways.)

I don't think any of this was due to any prohibition of the church, however.




Subject: Hello?  Kevin?
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 15:17 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-0027dfc8-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Kevin?  Are you going to respond to the last round?




Subject: Re:Hello?  Kevin?
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 23:15 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-002a62c4-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Ed asks:

<<Kevin?  Are you going to respond to the last round?>>

uh, Ed... Kevin let us know that he was taking a couple of weeks off ... one
hopes, to receive a therapeutic high colonic.

Jim..  :)



Subject: New batteries
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 1997 09:34 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-002c1200-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Avalon said:  >>uh, Ed... Kevin let us know that he was taking a couple
of weeks off ... <<

Sorry.  I just put new batteries in my calendar and it's running fast again .
. .   ;-)




Subject: Re:Hello?  Kevin?
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 1997 09:48 EST
From: SMacfar11
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-002c2228-at-3469db67@aol.com>

<<uh, Ed... Kevin let us know that he was taking a couple of weeks off
... one hopes, to receive a therapeutic high colonic.>>

LOL as usual!  Thanks, Avalon.  ((-:




Subject: Short Prayer Big
Problems
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 10:18 EST
From: OlePap
Message-id: <19971116151801.KAA26940@ladder02.news.aol.com>

 Should there happen to be any pilgrims wandering through who still
believe in God, country, and family, I invite them to join me in prayer for
our nation. We are facing many problems, both internal and external in
source. We are facing a situation which could lead to armed conflict. Our
commander-in-chief is one who has indicated that he "loathes" the military;
dodged the draft; and organized and participated in demonstrations against
the U.S. from
 foreign soil. Our hearts should go out to the individual soldiers who serve
the nation. My prayer is simple, but you may fill in the blanks: 

God help us! Amen!





Subject: Re: Short Prayer Big
Problems
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 14:29 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971116192901.OAA21034@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Should any
pilgrims wander through who still believe in God, country, and family, I
invite them to join me in prayer for our nation.  We face many problems, both
internal and external in source.  There could too easily be armed conflict
with Irag.  Many people keep spreading false stories about our
commander-in-chief, saying he "indicated that he "loathes" the military; they
falsely accuse him
 of having dodged the draft when the facts are he gave up his student
deferment to stand in the path of that speeding bus; they complain that he
organized and participated in demonstrations against the U.S. from foreign
soil, forgetting the first part of the patriot Stephen Decatur's toast to
America:  "In here intercourse with other nations, may she always be right."
Our hearts should go out to the individual soldiers who serve a nation that
fails
 to appreciate the freedoms for which they put their lives on the line.  My
prayer is simple, but you may fill in the blanks: 

God help us! Amen!

[No apologies to Olepap]

Ed
Subject: Re: Short Prayer Big Problems Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 17:10 EST From: Ard Eine Message-id: <19971116221001.RAA06692@ladder02.news.aol.com> At the service I attended this morning the congregation prayed for our Commander in Chief and for ALL our leaders, and for the men and women in our armed forces and their families. We asked that God may enlighten us all to conduct ourselves according to our duty AND our consciences. We also prayed for all those who may be affected by our actions in the Mid East, not forgetting all the millions of Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi children who have done no wrong, but will be among the first to suffer if hostilities break out again. <<Pro pacem oremus.>> Subject: Re: OlePap Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 20:21 EST From: Chuck Why Message-id: <19971117012101.UAA27136@ladder02.news.aol.com>
How long are some of you going to keep whining about Clinton
and what he did and said 25 years ago???  Why do you keep reminding us of
Bill Clinton's draft era behavior while never mentioning other "draft dodger"
like Newt Gingrich, Phil Graham, Pat B. Or
many other REPUBLICANS????????  The fact is
--- Clinton legally avoided the draft and demonstrated against the war
 just like millions of other middle class, white, American males
did.



Subject: Re:ArdEine/Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/9
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 01:09 EST
From: Sundiii
Message-id: <19971117060900.BAA28227@ladder01.news.aol.com>



Subject: Re:Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/9
Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 16:04 EST
From: ArdEine
Message-id: <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001e0fd7-at-3469db67@aol.com>

Sundii writes:
<<People should worship however they want in their own home.  Narrow-minded
people say "We have to allow prayer in schools." >>

>>>Sundii, I don't think I'm being narrow-minded when I say that prayer IS
allowed in schools, and should be. But there is nothing in the Federal
court's injunction in the Alabama school prayer case that prevents praying in
school.<<<

No, prayer shouldn't be allowed in the schools.  We shouldn't even have
PUBLIC education.  

No, I didn't say we shouldn't have education.  I said we shouldn't have
PUBLIC education.  All educaton should be on computers at HOME.  That would
eliminate the question "should there be or shouldn't there be prayer in
schools."   No schools = no prayer = no problem.

Columnist Charlie Reese said some people call public education "pagan
schools."  I had to laugh.
Subject: Re:ArdEine/Valley Head, Alabama,11/8/9 Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 08:07 EST From: TangoLdr Message-id: <19971117130701.IAA11899@ladder02.news.aol.com> Sundiii: (reference is un-available, but:::) There will ALWAYS be prayer in any school, whether it is home, private or public school...Why? "As long as there are TESTS, there will be prayer in School" (From one never so faithful as when the math test came down... :) Randy Subject: Sayanora, Kevin? Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 10:07 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971117150700.KAA19595@ladder01.news.aol.com> Am I still a week early? I had hoped Kevin would return to answer the last round of responses from LTSurviver and others . . . Ed



Subject: Re:ArdEine/Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/9
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 21:06 EST
From: PortnoyR
Message-id: <19971118020600.VAA20027@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Sundi says: << I said we shouldn't have PUBLIC education.  All educaton
should be on computers at HOME. >>

Well, that's an interesting idea.  But let's say a child is an only child,
and is taught at home on computers.  How does this child learn how to
interact with other children?  And what about physical education?  We'll have
a country full of possibly intelligent but socially inept and out-of-shape
slugs.  Don't we have enough problems in this country without adding these
two?



Subject: Free public education
Date: Tue, Nov 18, 1997 18:32 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971118152601.KAA08376@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Sundi says: <<
I said we shouldn't have PUBLIC education.  All educaton should be on
computers at HOME. >>

I encourage everyone to read Thomas Jefferson's 'Notes on Virginia,' and his
autobiography.  There he details why education for the masses is important to
freedom in America.

Killing the public schools is opening the veins of American democracy, and
ultimately the republic.  Had such a recommendation been made during the cold
war we would have accused them of being a communist spy or terrorist.

It's a dumb idea.  An educated public is essential to economic freedom, which
drives so much of the good we do as a people.  Killing the public schools is
one of the worst ideas of all time.

Ed



Subject: Re:ArdEine/Valley Head,
Alabama,11/8/9
Date: Tue, Nov 18, 1997 19:31 EST
From: BearBkr
Message-id: <19971119003101.TAA27746@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Sundi >> I said we shouldn't have PUBLIC education.  All educaton
should be on computers at HOME. <<

Portnoy R >> Well, that's an interesting idea.  But let's say a child is an
only child, and is taught at home on computers.  How does this child learn
how to interact with other children?  And what about physical education?
We'll have a country full of possibly intelligent but socially inept and
out-of-shape slugs.  Don't we have enough problems in this country without
adding these two? <<

Most folks who teach their kids at home are pretty conscious of all this and
make a real effort to compensate. It doesn't have to be an isolated
undertaking. They network with other homeschooling parents. The kids interact
on field trips and social outings, etc. They  organize  courses in common.
Science courses if one of the participating parents is knowledgeable in
science, etc. Otherwise it's just too darn difficult for the parents, esp.
when you
 get to the secondary school level.
I'm not sure kids who are taught at home are necessarily worse off in regards
to physical education than the kids in public school. Physical activity in
public schools is often limited to kids who are competitive in team sports;
the rest come home and slump in front of the TV. Homeschooling parents are
generally more aware of the totality of what the kid is doing, including
his/her physical condition, since they can't shift the burden.
Schooling at home is a good alternative for many, as are private schools. Not
the ONLY way to go as Sundii seems to say. Sundii often has some pretty good
insights but he's awful dogmatic in wanting to apply his views to everybody
and everything. His utopian society would be pretty totalitarian, in the long
run. (As are most utopias, starting with Sir Thomas More, the inventor of
Utopia.) 



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 06:06 EST
From: Domiobrien
Message-id: <19971122110601.GAA18284@ladder01.news.aol.com>

The Pagan Irish bathed daily in cold water; there are plenty of
references in  early manuscripts to the requirement to wash up before eating
the evening meal, including the detailed one to the Fianna that they must
bathe all over in cold water each evening, including rinsing and rebraiding
their hair ( after taking care of their hound, any persons dependent on them,
and before eating their supper). Hospitality laws required that the traveler
be
offered a bath, drink, and meal-- cold water to be offered immediately, and
hot  later. Hot water was apparently considered a bit effete for the
Fianna....
Domi



Subject: Re:US:  A cannibal
nation?
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 06:12 EST
From: Domiobrien
Message-id: <19971122111201.GAA16714@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In the Western world, daily bathing is not generally the custom outside
of the US-- once or twice a week is most common throughout Western Europe.
Even in the US, daily bathing did not become common until after WWII.  In
eastern Europe, once a week has been a middle-class practice-- working class
people have generally bathed all over about once a month. Anyone who has
lived or worked abroad or who has worked with refugees is quite familiar with
this.
And it wasn't just years ago whenI lived there-- a young couple I know just
went to Austria this year to work on a project with Eastern Europeans , and
have commented that the Austrians on the project all shower weekly and the
East Europeans far less often. They have been told NOT to bathe more often
themselves, as it's considered a waste of resources. Domi



Subject: Back to the basics.
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 1997 22:26 EST
From: Avalon9
Message-id: <19971123032600.WAA10975@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Looks like this thread has
gotten way off the original track.  To attempt to get it back in line, I'm
posting some of Jefferson's thoughts on this subject.  It still remains
crystal clear to me, that the original intent was to create an impermeable
wall between church and state.  Any disagreements?

Jim..

Separating Church & State
To Jefferson, religion was a matter of conscience, a private matter that
ought not concern government. For that reason, he joined his friend and
collaborator, James Madison, in calling both for the free exercise of
religious beliefs and for a strict avoidance of government "establishment" of
religion. "The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction," his original text declared. As he explained the
purpose of
the Virginia Statute in Notes on the State of Virginia , "Our rulers can have
authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them," noting
that "the rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit"
because men are answerable for them to God only. "The legitimate powers of
government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my
neighbour
to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor
breaks my leg."

When Jefferson wrote to Madison late in 1787, expressing his great
disappointment that the new federal Constitution included no explicit
guarantee of rights, the first such right that he listed was freedom of
religion. He surely had in mind the kind of broad statement of "natural
right" expressed in his Virginia Statute, which provided that "no man shall be compelled to frequent
or support" any religion,
nor any "suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief,"
and that "all men shall
be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect
their civil capabilities." Although the language finally adopted by Congress
in proposing what would become part of the First Amendment -- stating that
"Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" --
was far less explicit than the language of the Virginia statute, Jefferson
interpreted it to be just as
comprehensive a guarantee. In other words, he understood the First Amendment
freedom of religion clause, like the Virginia statute, to leave the formation
of religious opinions solely to "the reason of man."

As president, Jefferson faithfully adhered to this principle and to his broad
view of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. He departed from the
precedent set by his predecessors, Washington and Adams, by refusing to
recommend or designate any day for national prayer, fasting, or thanksgiving.
As he explained his policy, in a
letter made public early in his presidency, he noted that since Congress
was prohibited by the First Amendment from acts respecting religion, and the
president was authorized only to execute its acts, he had refrained from
prescribing "even occasional performances of devotion." In famous words, he
declared that the First Amendment mandated a "wall of separation between
Church and State."



Subject: Re: Free public
education
Date: Sun, Nov 23, 1997 11:45 EST
From: Witchward
Message-id: <19971123164501.LAA28459@ladder02.news.aol.com>

<<< It's a dumb idea.  An
educated public is essential to economic freedom, which drives so much of the
good we do as a people.  Killing the public schools is one of the worst ideas
of all time. >>>

That's exactly why the GOP and the CC want to kill public education Ed!



Subject: Adieu, Kevin Date: Mon, Nov 24, 1997 02:55 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971124075500.CAA29668@ladder01.news.aol.com> Kevin, if you ever return to this folder, please e-mail me. I left some questions a couple weeks back -- I'd really like to see if you have answers. Ed Subject: Re: Free public education Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 09:07 EST From: TEBMtn Message-id: <19971125140701.JAA03301@ladder01.news.aol.com> Interesting to read about the idea of killing the public schools from those who call themselves Christian. If it weren't for Christianity there would be no public schools. Look it up in your history. Grace and Peace, Tom. Subject: Give Thanks to God! Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 13:07 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971125180701.NAA18558@ladder02.news.aol.com> Boy this place looks different! I'm back, but briefly. Missouri was beautiful, but I've been swamped since returning. I intend to answer a few of the previous posts -- next week, I hope. However, I couldn't let Thanksgiving go by without some comment. In 1863, President Lincoln made a Thanksgiving Proclamation which began: It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord. He followed the lead of George Washington, who in 1789 had begun his Thanksgiving Proclamation: WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Note that both Presidents assert that the nation -- as a political body -- has a "duty" toward God. This completely destroys the concept of "separation of church and state" as set forth by the ACLU and other secularist forces. No one in 1997 argues that the U.S. should be a Southern Baptist nation, or an Episcopalian nation, or a Methodist nation, but I defy the secularists on this board to name one single signer of the Constitution who denied the proposition -- stated by Washington and Lincoln -- that the state has a duty to be Christian. Jefferson (who was out of town when the Constitution was written) suspended Washington's practice of Thanksgiving Proclamations, calling it "a kingly practice." He said the Federal govt had no power to make such proclamations, but the power rested "with the states." He did not say the nation had a duty to be secular. Obviously subsequent Presidents have chosen to ignore Jefferson's quirky views on the subject. Any nation that refuses to acknowledge God invites tyranny and destruction. We have much to be thankful for. Happy Holy-days! Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God! Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 21:21 EST From: Mbapprnt Message-id: <19971126022101.VAA07350@ladder01.news.aol.com> Subject: Give Thanks to God! Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 13:07 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971125180701.NAA18558@ladder02.news.aol.com> Boy this place looks different! I'm back, but briefly. Missouri was beautiful, but I've been swamped since returning. I intend to answer a few of the previous posts -- next week, I hope. However, I couldn't let Thanksgiving go by without some comment. In 1863, President Lincoln made a Thanksgiving Proclamation which began: It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord. He followed the lead of George Washington, who in 1789 had begun his Thanksgiving Proclamation: WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" Note that both Presidents assert that the nation -- as a political body -- has a "duty" toward God. This completely destroys the concept of "separation of church and state" as set forth by the ACLU and other secularist forces. No one in 1997 argues that the U.S. should be a Southern Baptist nation, or an Episcopalian nation, or a Methodist nation, but I defy the secularists on this board to name one single signer of the Constitution who denied the proposition -- stated by Washington and Lincoln -- that the state has a duty to be Christian. Jefferson (who was out of town when the Constitution was written) suspended Washington's practice of Thanksgiving Proclamations, calling it "a kingly practice." He said the Federal govt had no power to make such proclamations, but the power rested "with the states." He did not say the nation had a duty to be secular. Obviously subsequent Presidents have chosen to ignore Jefferson's quirky views on the subject. Any nation that refuses to acknowledge God invites tyranny and destruction. We have much to be thankful for. Happy Holy-days! Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Kevin, How about enlightening us as to exactly what the point of that fruitless little exercise was? Two presidents who lived nearly a hundred years apart do not laws make, nor do they change the Constitution. And tell us, what exactly were Washington and Lincoln thankful for? Washington because he wasn't an indigenous person to be exterminated by the pious (and persecuted in his own country--probably because he was so obnoxious in proclaiming his faith) Christian white man, and Lincoln because he wasn't black, for all that his influence freed the slaves? Yessir, us white folk got a lot to be thankful for this turkey day. Steve Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 04:01 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971126085901.DAA11207@ladder01.news.aol.com> Kevin said: >>In 1863, President Lincoln made a Thanksgiving Proclamation which began: It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; . . .<< Might we assume that Abraham Lincoln, our nation's greatest theologian, was using "nation" in the Biblical sense? That is, a group of like-minded people, not necessarily their government. We probably should assume that. Otherwise, of course, there is no explanation for how the Israelites in captivity in Egypt were kept from the plagues visited on their Pharoahic neighbors, since they were all subject to the same government -- though not of the same "nation." Should we believe that Lincoln intended to say that the government had religious duties as well as moral ones? Not on your life! Kevin continues: >>He followed the lead of George Washington, who in 1789 had begun his Thanksgiving Proclamation: WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"<< Washington was a deist, of course, so his use of the phrase "Almighty God" must be interpreted in that sense. Nowhere does Washington urge a wedding of church and state -- in fact, he pays homage to the government that IS separated from the church, saying that it "affords them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness" -- in direct contradistinction to the government whose yoke Washington had led an army to throw off. Could Washington ever have forgotten Valley Forge? >>Note that both Presidents assert that the nation -- as a political body -- has a "duty" toward God. This completely destroys the concept of "separation of church and state" as set forth by the ACLU and other secularist forces. << Notice that Kevin makes a great unjustified leap here, from giving thanks to the government having religious duties. The state of Bible literacy is so bad these days -- so few remember what happened to Saul! (See Samuel's account . . .) >>No one in 1997 argues that the U.S. should be a Southern Baptist nation, or an Episcopalian nation, or a Methodist nation, but I defy the secularists on this board to name one single signer of the Constitution who denied the proposition -- stated by Washington and Lincoln -- that the state has a duty to be Christian.<< James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and principal sponsor of the First Amendment. Want more than one signer? George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, who refused communion his entire adult life. Another? Ben Franklin. Need more? >>Jefferson (who was out of town when the Constitution was written) suspended Washington's practice of Thanksgiving Proclamations, calling it "a kingly practice." He said the Federal govt had no power to make such proclamations, but the power rested "with the states." He did not say the nation had a duty to be secular. Obviously subsequent Presidents have chosen to ignore Jefferson's quirky views on the subject.<< What Jefferson said was that IF such a power existed in any government on U.S. soil, it would rest with the states. He said that knowing that no state HAD such a power. In fact, Jefferson had written the law that got Virginia out of the business, in 1779, before there WAS a United States. Quirky views of Jefferson? He bothered to get the advice of his attorney general on the matter, according to Jefferson, in order to make sure that it was clear to subsequent generations that this was not the mere musing of a single citizen (the modest man shines through), but instead the official policy of the U.S. THAT is why the Supreme Court went back to Jefferson's writings -- because Jefferson intended that if freedom were ever threatened, the record would support it. Kevin continues: >>Any nation that refuses to acknowledge God invites tyranny and destruction. We have much to be thankful for.<< Any nation that fails to recognize that religious freedom is one of the chief bulwarks of protection against tyranny invites tyranny and destruction. That freedom includes the right of every American to refuse to acknowledge God. By the terms of modern American fundamentalists, people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson would be found unfit to hold office. Thank God for the First Amendment! Long may it endure. Ed Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 10:11 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971126151101.KAA24019@ladder02.news.aol.com> By the way, today is the anniversary of President George Washington's first ever presidential proclamation of thanksgiving -- on November 26, 1789. In 200 years, have we perhaps forgotten for what it was the U.S. people were asked to give thanks? Washington urged people to give thanks to God for the Constitution. Ed Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God! Date: Fri, Nov 28, 1997 14:03 EST From: BearBkr Message-id: <19971128190301.OAA07675@ladder02.news.aol.com> Kevin: >>Any nation that refuses to acknowledge God invites tyranny and destruction. We have much to be thankful for. << However, acknowledging God, and calling for prayers, hardly guarantee a nation from tyranny and destruction. Does public prayer, under government aegis, indicate that a society is more moral, more fair, more open, more just? Just last week, a Reuter's despatch from Havana advised us that Fidel Castro is now in favor of prayer. "Fidel Castro," Reuter's says, "has told Protestant leaders that the country needs the prayers and efforts of its Christian citizens to help solve its economic problems . . . " Of course, you and I can figure out what Castro's level of sincerity is, but, for public consumption I guess Cuba can now be said to have "acknowledged God." It isn't whether a "nation" officially acknowledges God that's important. It's whether people, as individuals, carry the love of God in their hearts and minds. Subject: Ed's Messageboard Malpractice #2 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 17:43 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971202224300.RAA02561@ladder01.news.aol.com> Webster argued that the single anti-Christian provision of Girard's will should force the entire will to be set aside. But as you may know, Ed, courts will attempt to salvage a will by removing any clause offensive to public policy. This is what the City of Philadelphia argued. They granted that the atheistic school clause was anti-Christian and therefore unlawful, but they argued that Webster should have . . . joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause. The City agreed with Webster that this was a Christian nation and that the Bible **must** be taught in schools. Giving a tortured interpretation of the Frenchman's will, the City argued: The purest principles of morality *are* to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible. . . . [T]here is an **obligation** to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., a pure system of morality. So, Ed, here we have two parties before the US Supreme Court arguing that a clause in a will requiring a Bible-free school cannot be enforced in America because this is a Christian nation. If your version of history were true, the Court would have laughed these lawyers out onto the street. Nobody after *Everson* can make arguments like this before the Court. (But then, the case which took prayer out of schools in 1962 did not cite a single judicial precedent. The doctrine of "separation of church and state" required a wholesale revision of American history. The Holy Trinity case, of course, cited the Girard case.) So what exactly did the Girard Court hold? How did it react to these Bible-thumping lawyers before it? Next -> Subject: Ed's Messageboard Malpractice #1 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 17:43 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971202224300.RAA00910@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001312f6-at-3469db67@aol.com>, EDarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Vidal v. Girard's Executors 43 US 126, 11 L.Ed 205 (1844)<< >Kevin, might it >be that the case doesn't have the ring of truth to it because you >misrepresented it? In your original post you said that the Frenchman >Girard's will was not upheld. You said, "The US Supreme Court ruled that the >will could not be enforced because this is a Christian nation and morality is >best taught from the New Testament." >But that's the opposite of what the >Court really said. The will WAS upheld. I quote from the headnotes: "The >exclusion of all ecclesiastics, missionaries, and ministers of any sort from >holding or exercising any station or duty in a college, or even visiting the >same; or the limitation of the instruction to be given to the scholars, to >pure morality, general benevolence, a love of truth, sobriety, and industry; >are not so derogatory and hostile to the Christian religion as to make a >devise for the foundation of such a college void according to the >constitution and laws of Pennsylvania." "The *headnotes*?!?" Ed, relying on headnotes is grounds for a malpractice suit in most jurisdictions. Besides, even if these headnotes were not written by the publisher but by the Court, they were probably written 150 years ago, before anyone had the slightest idea that the religion of Secular Humanism would be imposed on the schools and the Bible removed from them. The note was not written to anticipate the issue now before us. This case blows the myth of "separation" to pieces, but most Americans have had their historical memories flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole and can't even grasp what's going on in this case. Nobody in this case believed in a "separation of church and state" as now understood, and *nobody* believed that the Constitution required the Bible to be removed from schools. Which is what the atheistic Frenchman Girard was attempting to do, by stipulating that in his school "no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever" should be allowed in the school. He stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" should be taught, by which he obviously meant Secular Humanism/No Bible. Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs conceded that an atheistic school such as this would be repugnant to the Christian law of this country. This was, of course, one of the arguments raised by Daniel Webster: [T]he plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law. His reasoning before the US Supreme Court was based on Biblical authority: Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it. One has to exercise a little historiographic wisdom here. What kind of world was it back then the a man of Daniel Webster's stature (called "the Defender of the Constitution) could rise before the US Supreme Court and cite Bible verses as the basis for setting aside probably the largest devise of its kind in the history of the New World? This could only be argued in a Christian Nation before the Everson Court invented the "separation of church and state' in the mid-20th century. next . . . the argument of the City Subject: Ed's Messageboard Malpractice #3 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 17:43 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971202224300.RAA00919@ladder02.news.aol.com> After both sides argued that the anti-Christian provision of the will was repugnant to law, the unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was delivered by J. Joseph Story, whose *Commentaries on the Constitution* were regarded as the greatest statement of US Constitutional Law. The Court ruled that Christianity could NOT be excluded from the school. Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. . . . It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider . . . the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country. That's the United State Supreme Court, 1844. That holding cannot be made after the Everson case. Not because the Constitution requires it, but because the Secular Humanist Court now requires that *atheists* are not to be annoyed by prayers, Bible readings, or manger scenes. Subject: Ed's Messageboard Malpractice #4 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 17:45 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971202224300.RAA02575@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-001312f6-at-3469db67@aol.com>, EDarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Not only was the will upheld, but the court seems to approve the right of >Christians and all other Pennsylvanians, and therefore all other Americans, >to tell clerics to talk a flying leap at a the moon. >What sort of a >christian nation is it that makes it fine to tell the Christian leaders to >bugger off? Your reasoning is not only utterly inconsistent with historical facts, but it's downright anti-human. Now I emphasize again that I am not a member of any religious denomination, and have not "attended church" for 10 years. I am against all ordained clergy. See my page at http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/Book4.htm You are utterly misrepresenting the attitude of the Court to the Frenchman's will. If anyone is being disrespected by the Court, it is not Christian clergy, but the French atheist, who clearly wanted his multi-million dollar estate to foster atheism. But as the Scripture says, A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, But the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous. Proverbs 13:22 The Court looks at Girard's will, which expressly states that no clergy can even enter the schools as visitors, and says, that's OK: Why may not *laymen* instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics [that's "clergy" for you public school graduates.] And we cannot overlook the blessings which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay *must* impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught **as a divine revelation** in the college -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality incul- cated? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? You cannot even IMAGINE the current Supreme Court saying anything like this. That's why the Court has had to ignore all legal precedent in formulating its doctrine of the "separation of church and state." It's not in the Constitution, nor its legislative history, nor in Court cases throughout the 19th century. Yes, Ed, there were other legal issues in this case, and no, the parties did not come to the Court asking whether America was a Christian nation. **It was assumed** by all parties in this litigation, including the Court itself. Webster argued that an atheistic school was "repugnant," the City's attorneys agreed that it was "obnoxious," and the US Supreme Court said that a Bible-free school could not be permitted -- moral principles in schools MUST be taught from the Bible. This case and the Holy Trinity case are clear evidence that the Constitution was never understood to require the state to remove prayer and Bible reading from the schools. The cases are evidence that the post-Everson Court has lied, misrepresenting American history and the Constitution. Subject: Re: Theocracy and Fascism Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA02336@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <board-m-folder-00444c70-msg-00156a1d-at-3469db67@aol.com>, Katachumen@aol.com (Katachumen) comments: >>>"The whole history of this nation." Most secularists are utterly ignorant >of the "whole history" of this nation, especially when it comes to the >influence of Christianity upon it. >First off, the "history of this nation" >begins in 1776. Previous to that the United States did not exist (only >English colonies did). It is irresponsible historiography to construct American history without reference to the Theocratic Puritans who preceded the Declaration/Constitution. The domination of the law by Christian principles was never repudiated by the Constitution. It was assumed. History is a flow of ideas, not such a radical discontinuity. But as Orwellian as it is to cover our eyes to the centuries of history that preceded the Constitution, secularists don't even listen to history *after* the Constitution, such as recorded in the Holy Trinity and Girard cases. Those cases demonstrate that even after the Constitution, law and public policy were based explicitly on Biblical principles. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #1 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA03905@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971126085901.DAA11207@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin said: >>In 1863, President Lincoln made a Thanksgiving >Proclamation which began: It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own >their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and > transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine >repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; . . .<< Might we assume that >Abraham Lincoln, our nation's greatest theologian, was using "nation" in the >Biblical sense? That is, a group of like-minded people, not necessarily >their government. We probably should assume that. Otherwise, of course, >there is no explanation for how the Israelites in captivity in Egypt were >kept from the plagues visited on their Pharoahic neighbors, since they were >all subject to the same government -- though not of the same >"nation." Should we believe that Lincoln intended to say that the government >had religious duties as well as moral ones? Not on your life! Then why was he making a Presidential Governmental Thanksgiving proclamation? He said "nations have a duty" and he, as leader of the nation, discharged that duty. Not all Israelites escaped the plagues on Egypt. The Angel of Death did not "pass-over" the houses of those that did put blood on the doorposts. The distinction was drawn along the lines of faith, not ethnicity. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #2 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA02364@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971126085901.DAA11207@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin continues: >>He followed the lead of George Washington, who in 1789 >had begun his Thanksgiving Proclamation: >WHEREAS, It is the duty of all >nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to >be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and >favor; >WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, >requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of >public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with >grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by >affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government >for their safety and happiness:"<< >Washington was a deist, of course, so his >use of the phrase "Almighty God" must be interpreted in that sense. Washington was not a "deist" in the 20th century sense of that word. Neither was Ben Franklin. The modern "deist" sees God as a Clockmaker who set the universe in motion and now exists detached from the world, without miraculous intervention. Notice that Washington says we should pray for God's "protection and favor." But a deist god does not intervene to "protect," and does not play favorites. Washington often attributed his military victories to the direct and miraculous intervention of God, hardly consistent with the slanderous accusation made against him of being a "deist." Thus, his Presidential proclamation asked that the nation give thanks for "the many and signal favors of Almighty God." A "signal" of what? A deist does not believe that God gives signs of favor. One of the greatest American constitutional scholars, Justice Joseph Story, authored a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Sup Ct in which he said that "deism" was a "form of infidelity" which was contrary to American law and could not be taught in the schools. This was the opinion of the vast majority of those who drafted and signed the Constitution, and the public at large. The ACLU is wrong. The "deism" of the Founders is a myth, pure and simple. >Nowhere >does Washington urge a wedding of church and state -- No one I know does, not even Pat Robertson. >in fact, he pays homage >to the government that IS separated from the church, saying that it "affords >them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their >safety and happiness" -- in direct contradistinction to the government whose >yoke Washington had led an >army to throw off. Could Washington ever have >forgotten Valley Forge? Of course not. On May 2, 1778, when the Continental Army was beginning to emerge from its infamous winter at Valley Forge, Commander-in-Chief Geo Washington commended his troops for their courage and patriotism and then reminded them: 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. (Writings, (1932) XI:342-343, General Orders of 5/2/1778) Later that year, still in the midst of the Revolution, the help that America had already non-deistically received from their "firm reliance on Divine Providence" was so obvious that Washington told Gen. Thomas Nelson: The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obliga- tions. (Writings, Sparks ed. 1838, VI:36, 8/20/1778) >>Note that both Presidents assert that the nation >-- as a political body -- has a "duty" toward God. This completely destroys >the concept of "separation of church and state" as set forth by the ACLU and >other secularist forces. << >Notice that Kevin makes a great unjustified leap >here, from giving thanks to the government having religious duties. The Presidents declared that they were discharging their duties as government agents to lead the nation in prayer to God. The Government has religious duties, there can be no doubt. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #3 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA03936@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971126085901.DAA11207@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) comments on Kevin's assertion that: >>>No one in 1997 argues that the U.S. should be a Southern Baptist nation, >or an Episcopalian nation, or a Methodist nation, but I defy the >secularists on this board to name one single signer of the Constitution who >denied the proposition -- stated by Washington and Lincoln -- that the state >has a duty to be Christian.<< >James Madison, the Father of the Constitution >and principal sponsor of the First Amendment. Want more than one signer? He Denied that the State has a duty to implement Christian principles? Where?!? The state has a duty to implement anti-Christian principles? Then why did Madison issue public proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving? >George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, who >refused communion his entire adult life. Big deal. Opposition to ecclesiocracy and sacraments is not opposition to God. I don't believe in any sacraments either. Second, Washington was discrete about this, not wanting to make public offense. Finally, re-read my question. You're trying to say that Washington denied the need for the State to carry out its religious duties, which was clearly stated by Washington himself. >Another? Ben Franklin. Need >more? Ben Franklin believed that we should pray for God to intervene in the history of the nation, and for our good. That is not the mark of a "deist." Not to be missed in all this is the fact that the ACLU doctrine of "separation of church and state" PRECLUDES these proclamations from occurring. This shows that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the "separation of church and state," when that phrase is understood to mean "separation of religion [Christianity] and state." Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA02388@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971126085901.DAA11207@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) comments on Kevin's claim: > >>Jefferson (who was out of town when the Constitution was >written) suspended Washington's practice of Thanksgiving Proclamations, > calling it "a kingly practice." He said the Federal govt had no power to >make such proclamations, but the power rested "with the states." He did not >say the nation had a duty to be secular. Obviously subsequent Presidents >have chosen to ignore Jefferson's quirky views on the subject.<< >What >Jefferson said was that IF such a power existed in any government on U.S. >soil, it would rest with the states. He said that knowing that no state HAD >such a power. Prove it. The states most assuredly did have such power, and it was continually exercised. Absolutely ludicrous assertion. Your position would have us believe there was no Thanksgiving Day after the First Amendment. EARTH TO ED!! Jefferson was alone in his belief that the President of the U.S. could not lead the nation in prayer, and his belief did not stop the rest of the nation. In your quest to exclude Christian principles from American government, you are grasping for something in Jefferson and overlooking the fact that all the rest of early America is against your viewpoint. >Quirky views >of Jefferson? He bothered to get the advice of his attorney general on the >matter, according to Jefferson, in order to make sure that it was clear to >subsequent generations that this was not the mere musing of a single citizen >(the modest man shines through), but instead the official policy of the U.S. It obviously wasn't clear to Lincoln. >THAT is why the Supreme Court went back to Jefferson's writings -- because >Jefferson intended that if freedom were ever threatened, the record would >support it. I'm unclear on the ref to the SupCt. When exactly did they go back to Jefferson, to establish what point? Kevin continues: >>Any nation that refuses to acknowledge God >invites tyranny and destruction. We have much to be thankful for.<< >Any >nation that fails to recognize that religious freedom is one of the chief >bulwarks of protection against tyranny invites tyranny and destruction. That >freedom includes the right of every American to refuse to acknowledge God. Fine. Don't acknowledge God. Let Washington call you "wicked" and "worse than an infidel." But don't try to convince me that the Constitution prohibits the State from implementing Biblical Law, because history and the first hundred years of SupCt decisions goes against you. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God! #1 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA03964@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971126022101.VAA07350@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mbapprnt@aol.com (Mbapprnt) writes: >Kevin, How about enlightening us as to exactly what the point of that >fruitless little exercise was? Two presidents who lived nearly a hundred >years apart do not laws make, nor do they change the Constitution. No, but they help us understand the "original intent" of the Framers. >And tell >us, what exactly were Washington and Lincoln thankful for? Washington >because he wasn't an indigenous person to be exterminated by the pious (and >persecuted in his own country--probably because he was so obnoxious in >proclaiming his faith) Christian white man, and Lincoln because he wasn't >black, for all that his influence freed the slaves? Yessir, us white folk got >a lot to be thankful for this turkey day. Steve Maybe you're not thankful for the same things they were, and maybe I'm not either. They were thankful that they killed a lot of British soldiers. Not me. The point is, they believed the government had a duty to God. Secularists deny that the State must conform itself to God's Law. They tell us that the Constitution prohibits government from acknowledging its obligation to and dependence upon God. These presidents show that the secularists are wrong; the constitution does not prohibit this. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/cause/1776.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God! #2 Date: Tue, Dec 2, 1997 21:47 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971203024700.VAA02423@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971128190301.OAA07675@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bearbkr@aol.com (BearBkr) writes: >It isn't whether a "nation" officially acknowledges God that's important. >It's whether people, as individuals, carry the love of God in their hearts >and minds. It's not either/or. What individuals think is surely important, I agree, and mere government edict does not make a people righteous, but if the government imposes atheism on people, can we be surprised if the people don't carry the love of God in their hearts? Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Ben Franklin, not a Christian Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 07:09 EST From: CorumB Message-id: <19971203120901.HAA13937@ladder01.news.aol.com> Ben Franklin believed in God, and he respected Jesus as a great moral teacher, but he was not a Christian, as this letter indicates: "Reverend and Dear Sir, ... You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiousity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure. I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the Goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously thro' a long life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, though without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness. ... P.S. ... I confide, that you will not expose me to Criticism and censure by publishing any part of this Communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All Sects here, and we have a great Variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with Subscriptions for building their new Places of Worship; and, as I have never opposed any of their Doctrines, I hope to go out of the World in Peace with them all. ..." --(Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale College, October 19, 1789, reprinted in _Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography and Other Writings_, Signet, New American Library, NYNY, pp. 336-338. Ellipses in the reprint.) Subject: Madison on Separation Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 08:44 EST From: CorumB Message-id: <19971203134401.IAA17340@ladder02.news.aol.com>
James Madison>> "Who does not see that the same authority
which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may
establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion
of all other Sects?" -- James Madison, from Memorial and Remonstrance 

CorumB> Unfortunately, there are several such citizens on this board, Mr.
Madison, citizens who would declare the United States a "Christian
Nation".



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 14:56 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971203195600.OAA18172@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971203134401.IAA17340@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:

>James Madison>> "Who does not see that the same authority which can
establish
>Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the
>same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other
>Sects?" -- James Madison, from Memorial and Remonstrance 

CorumB>
>Unfortunately, there are several such citizens on this board, Mr. Madison,
>citizens who would declare the United States a "Christian Nation".

Yes, like Justice Joseph Story, one of the greatest experts on Constitution
Law in our nation's history.

I don't think you understand the issue behind Madison's "M&R." He opposed a
tax to support Christian ministers. Name one person on this board who
believes the state should levy a tax to support Christian ministers. Name one
person in the USA who believes this. Everybody believes in this kind of
"separation." Nobody defends this kind of "establishment."

Here's another quote from Madison's *Memorial*  which could equally be taken
out of context:

      5. Because the Bill implies that the Civil Magistrate is a competent 
          Judge of Religious Truth;

Every time the Civil Magistrate passes a law it proclaims itself a competent
judge of religious truth. When it passes a law against murder it is saying
that those who practice religious cannibalism are wrong. When it passes a law
against polygamy it delcares Mormonism to be wrong. When it outlaws theft and
assassination, it outlaws the followers of Kali. The creation of a civil
magistrate is the establishment of a religion, and Madison did not deny
this. In fact, several of his arguments against the tax were based on the
prediction that it would harm the spread of Christainity: 

      7.Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, 
         instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had
a 
         contrary operation.

      12.Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the
light 
          of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious
gift 
          ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. 
          Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the 
          number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and 
          how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen

          the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are
strangers 
          to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and 
          countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, 
          in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of
Levelling 
          as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of
Truth, 
          the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would
circumscribe it 
          with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error. 

"False religions"? 
The "Lemon" test articulated by the US Sup Ct would *invalidate* Madison's
"M&R" based on this consideration. 
Let that fact sink in. You support a doctrine of "separation of church and
state" and defend it with Madison, when that doctrine would have nullified
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance!!!
You may recall a creationist statute which was thrown out by the Sup Ct
because, even though the statute itself had absolutely no reference to God or
religion and was completely secular, it was determined that some of the
legislators thought the bill would help Christianity. This proves that the
current doctrine of "separation of church and state" cannot appeal to
Madison.

No one on this board supports the "establishment" -- that is, the taxation
and government funding -- of "religion" -- that is, particular ecclesiastical
denominations. Anyone who says all religions are equally true, or that the
Civil Magistrate does not enforce a particular kind of religious morality
with every law it passes, has not studied the issues carefully. Certainly
they haven't studied Madison.

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




Subject: Madison's Proclamations
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 16:20 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <19971203212101.QAA26273@ladder01.news.aol.com>

kevin4vft>> He Denied that the State has a duty to implement
Christian principles? Where?!? The state has a duty to implement
anti-Christian principles? Then why did Madison issue public proclamations
for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving?<<

CorumB> Good question (the last one, that is).  Here's what Robert Boston
wrote about it:  
     "Lastly, anti-separationists point out that Madison during his
presidency issued proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting.
Again, they tell only half of the story. Later in life Madison concluded that
his actions had been unconstitutional and in a document known as the
'Detached Memoranda' listed five reasons why presidents should not issue such
proclamations. Madison noted that his own proclamations were written in such
a way as to
'deade[n] as much as possible any claim of political right to enjoin
religious observances by resting these expressly on the voluntary compliance
of individuals, and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished
simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the
occasion.' " [_Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church &
State_, Robert Boston, 1993, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, p. 70. See
excerpts of
the Detached
Memoranda ] 

Since when is separation of church and state anti-Christian? Again, Boston
writes:
     "Finally, evidence proves that Madison, like Jefferson, was confident
that separation of church and state would protect the institutions of both
government and religion. Late in his life Madison wrote to a Luther[a]n
minister about this matter, declaring, 'A due distinction ... between what is
due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of
both obligations.... A mutual independence is found most friendly to
practical
religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.' " (p. 72-73)

Does that  sound anti-Christian to anyone familiar with the New
Testament?





Subject: Story v. Constitution
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 18:58 EST
From: CorumB
Message-id: <19971203235800.SAA13764@ladder01.news.aol.com>

CorumB>>>Unfortunately, there are several such citizens on this board,
Mr. Madison, citizens who would declare the United States a "Christian
Nation".<<<

Kevin4vft>>Yes, like Justice Joseph Story, one of the greatest experts on
Constitution Law in our nation's history.<<

CorumB> As long as I have Boston's book handy:
   "In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams,
president of the College of Charleston. Adams had written a pamphlet titled
'The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,'
which attempted to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian
nation. He asked Madison for some comments about the piece.
   Madison gently but firmly rejected Adams'[] ideas, pointing out that the
question to be settled centers on whether Christianity is best served by
government support or voluntary contributions. Madison made it clear that he
believed the latter, writing, 'In the Papal system, government and religion
are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of
government.'
   Madison continued, 'In most of the governments of the old world, the legal
establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little
toleration of others makes a part of the political and civil organization and
there are very few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the
system has been favorable to either religion or to government....
   'The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting
coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire
abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond
the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against
trespass on its legal rights by others.' The American experience, Madison
concluded, would be the 'decisive test.'
   Adams sent his pamphlet to other influential figures of the day, including
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who enthusiastically endorsed its ideas
and said the United States should align itself with Christianity. Religious
Right activists claim that Madison must have endorsed the Christian nation
concept himself, since he had appointed Story to the high court. Again they
either don't know or won't tell the whole story. The truth is, Madison
appointed Story to the Supreme Court with clear reluctance and offered him
the position only after four others had turned it down. (The Supreme Court at
that time was considered a low prestige, hardship post.)
   What is rarely pointed out is that Story's church-state views were quite
extreme, even by the standards of today's Religious Right. He defended
Massachusetts' harsh system of church establishment all of his life and
advocated strict enforcement of blasphemy laws and religious tests for public
office, all clear violations of the Constitution. Tragically, Story is
regarded as a hero by today's Religious Right while Madison and Jefferson are
either
ignored, defamed or lied about." (p. 71-72)

Note: one of the lies that Boston alludes to is the Religious Right claim
that Jefferson referred to the wall of separation as "one-directional".
Robert Boston's book _Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of
Church & State_ is a good introduction to the Religious Right's attempts to
revise history. It's 257 pp. long, and available from Prometheus Books.

So, Story was "one of the greatest experts on Constitution Law in our
nation's history"? LOL, that's a keeper!  ;c)



Subject: Re: Ed's Messageboard
Malpractice #4
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:35 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204023500.VAA03025@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Boy, talk about
malpractice!

Kevin said, in the fourth post that failed to deal with the fact that his
earlier source was dead wrong on the actual holding in the case of Vidal v.
Girard's Executors:  >>Yes, Ed, there were other legal issues in this case,
and no, the parties did not come to the Court asking whether America was a
Christian nation. **It was assumed** by all parties in this litigation,
including the Court itself. Webster argued that an atheistic school was
"repugnant," the City's attorneys agreed that it was "obnoxious," and the US
Supreme Court said that a Bible-free school could not be permitted -- moral
principles in schools MUST be taught from the Bible.<<

And with all of these people agreeing that the will was in error because it
banned clergy, the Court threw cold water on all of them, and said that the
will was perfectly valid as written, including the ban on clergy.  How
presumptiuous of the litigants, the court said, to assume that morals could
only come via a man of the cloth spoon feeding verses from the Bible.  In the
end, Kevin, it doesn't matter what wizardry -- or sophistry -- Daniel Webster
used in his arguments, nor the other side -- because the Court held that the
clause in the will was NOT repugnant, and that the will could stand as it
was.  If the litigants assumed that the nation was a "Christian" one and that
the will or any part of it would be found invalid because of it, then the
ruling stands as a minor cenotaph to religious liberty.  The Court said
religion was strong enough to withstand such "assaults," adopting in
principal
and deed the policies urged by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the
*Memorial and Remonstrance* supporting the Virginia Statute for Religious
Freedom.

Kevin continued:  >>This case and the Holy Trinity case are clear evidence
that the Constitution was never understood to require the state to remove
prayer and Bible reading from the schools. The cases are evidence that the
post-Everson Court has lied, misrepresenting American history and the
Constitution.<<

Not at all.  The case makes it clear that there was no expectation under the
Constitution that the Bible would be, or should be, part of the everyday
curriculum of a school.  Kevin makes it clear that both parties expected the
court to say that Christianity was essential to the upbringing of the
children, and the best hoped for was that this one clause in the will would
be struck.  But the Court let it stand.

Headnotes a bad cite?  If you want to get into the nitty gritty of the law,
sure, it's a bad practice.  But it's a worse practice to typify a case
holding OPPOSITE the way the notes read (and they were indeed written
contemporary to the case).  That's not only malpractice, it's a Rule 11
violation, and will make you subject to sanctions if your the lawyer, loss of
case if you're the client.  THEN the client gets you for malpractice, and you
have no
defense.

Ed



Subject: Re: Theocracy and
Fascism
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:41 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204024100.VAA03772@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>It is irresponsible historiography to construct American history without
reference to the Theocratic Puritans who preceded the
Declaration/Constitution. The domination of the law by Christian principles
was never repudiated by the Constitution. It was assumed. History is a flow
of ideas, not such a radical discontinuity.<<

But it's wildly irresponsible historiography to argue that by extending the
history of the country prior to 1776 we make it a Christian nation.  The
Mayflower Compact, which was the document that got those "Theocratic
Puritans" on shore and out of the vomitorium the boat had become, is
celebrated correctly as the first case of self government in the new world.
It was a contract between each and every family -- two-thirds of whom were
non-Puritan
entrepreneurs, by the way -- to be bound by laws that the group would make in
a fair manner -- sans the approval of the King or Parliament, sans the
approval of the Pope or any Christian authority, sans the approval of the
company that financed their trip and held the charter which would have
provided their rule of law, had they made it to the chartered land in
Virginia.  

The Mayflower Compact was the first case of "we the people" setting up what
Lincoln later called government of, by and for the people.  

Yes, there are all sorts of prayers that God will smile on the venture in the
document.  But diagram the sentences:  The Compact is a secular agreement to
create a government outside the divine-right tradition some would have
expected (but under which the Pilgrims had been so chafed).  

Ed



Subject: Re: Theocracy and
Fascism
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:44 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204024400.VAA04196@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>
. . . secularists don't even listen to history *after* the Constitution, such
as recorded in the Holy Trinity and Girard cases. Those cases demonstrate
that even after the Constitution, law and public policy were based explicitly
on Biblical principles.<<

Only because secularists, all being afflicted with Missouritis, read the
cases and see that they are based on legal principles, not Biblical ones.
And all those mentions of the great work of Christianity?  Well, they DO
prove the point the Court made in Holy Trinity, that it WOULD be inaccurate
to assume, as the federal government had argued, that the Congress must be
presumed to be hostile to Christianity, under the First Amendment.  

What bizarre stretch of David Barton's imagination gets us from "not presumed
hostile" to Christianity, the real ruling, to the imposition of stoning for
unruly children under a perversion of Mosaic law?

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #1
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:47 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204024801.VAA03166@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Not all Israelites escaped the plagues on Egypt. The Angel of Death did not
"pass-over" the houses of those that did put blood on the doorposts. The
distinction was drawn along the lines of faith, not ethnicity.<<

But those Israelites who did mark their doorposts as directed were "passed
over" by the worst of the plagues.  They were not held responsible for the
actions of the government, nor was the government saved by their action.  The
nation of Israel was not to be confused with the government of Egypt.
Similarly, the nation of Christians in America should not be confused with
the U.S. Government.

Or would you have the plagues visit everyone regardless?

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #2
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:49 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204024900.VAA03338@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>One of the greatest American constitutional scholars, Justice Joseph Story,
authored a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Sup Ct in which he said that "deism"
was a "form of infidelity" which was contrary to American law and could not
be taught in the schools. <<

Story always had it in for George Washington, didn't he?   ;-)

Story was just wrong on this point.  And what case would that be, Kevin?
After finding Barton 180 degrees wrong on Holy Trinity and Vidal, I almost
can't wait to find out which one he got wrong, next.

Ed



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 21:54 EST
From: PortnoyR
Message-id: <19971204025401.VAA03894@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin says and asks: << He opposed a tax to support Christian
ministers. Name one person on this board who believes the state should levy a
tax to support Christian ministers. Name one person in the USA who believes
this. >>

Anyone who believes a family should be allowed to use tax dollars to pay (in
part or in total) for private education is supporting a tax to support
Christian ministers.



Subject: Loss of Teaching
(fiction)
Date: Wed, Dec 3, 1997 22:09 EST
From: PortnoyR
Message-id: <19971204030901.WAA05928@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Every Sunday, I used to pack my kids up into the car, drive
them to a nearby church, and drop them off.  I don't have time to go myself,
of course, but I also don't have time to teach my children, so I leave it up
to this church.  It's an accredited church, so I assumed my children would
get at least a minimum education.

Well, imagine my surprise when I found out what the kids were learning, or,
more appropriately, what they weren't learning.  Apparently,
the minister gets into his pulpit each week and preaches from the Bible
alone.  He doesn't spend any time on the three R's.  There isn't even mention
of mathematics, biology, literature, spelling.  In fact, apparently my little
Timmy asked one teacher about evolution -- fortunately, he had heard about
that in his school, but was confused as to the details -- and his teacher
told him that was inappropriate to discuss in church.  Can you believe
it?!?!?!?  Inappropriate?!?!?!?

It's appauling, I don't know how they can expect children to grow up to be
contributing members of society when they don't even teach the basics.

I have to blame myself.  After all, if I had taken a little more active role
in my kids education, I would have noticed earlier that I cannot trust this
church to teach my children about anything but the Bible, and I will have to
find another source for their general education.

Something really should be done about this!

<<Author's note: If you don't get it, you never will.>>
The Grunge Diva
aka
Rachel
Subject: Re: Story v.
Constitution
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA26889@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971203235800.SAA13764@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:

>   "In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams,
>president of the College of Charleston. Adams had written a pamphlet titled
>'The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,'
>which attempted to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian
>nation. He asked Madison for some comments about the piece.
   Madison gently
>but firmly rejected Adams'[] ideas, pointing out that the question to be
>settled centers on whether Christianity is best served by government support
>or voluntary contributions. Madison made it clear that he believed the
>latter, writing, 'In the Papal system, government and religion are in a
>manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.'

I haven't read Jasper Adams' book, so I shall assume that Madison gives it
fair treatment. That being the case, it has no relevance. I keep saying we
must distinguish between a "separation" which has to do with taxation to
support ecclesiastical organizations, and a "separation" which tries to
separate the State from religious and moral considerations. Quite obviously,
this book is talking about supporting churches with tax funds (as opposed to
voluntary contributions). 

Name one person alive today who says the salaries of ministers or the
building fund of churches should be paid for with tax funds. What's that? You
say you can't name a single person who believes this? Then why do you keep
attempting to refute the idea?

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



Subject: Re: Story v.
Constitution
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055301.AAA25402@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971203235800.SAA13764@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:

>The truth is, Madison appointed Story to the Supreme Court with clear
>reluctance and offered him the position only after four others had turned it
>down. (The Supreme Court at that time was considered a low prestige,
hardship
>post.)

Rob Boston is a propagandist for a low-circulation anti-Religious Right
publication.
Here's what Lawrence Friedman, Prof of Law at Stanford, says in his *History
of American Law* p. 288f.:

     By common consent, the two most significant figures in American 
     legal literature in the first half of the 19th century were James Kent 
     and Joseph Story. Both were erudite teachers and judges. Both 
     had enormous reputations in their day. . . . In their day, their 
     reputations went further than any other legal scholars in America. 
     No one on the Continent had ever heard of James Sullivan or Zephaniah 
     Swift. But Joseph Story was a name that won respect, even from 
     continental jurists. 

Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School. 
While on the Supreme Court he authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269
were the majority or the opinion of the Court.

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



Subject: Re: Madison's
Proclamations
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA25412@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971203212101.QAA26273@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:

>CorumB> Good question (the last one, that is).  Here's what Robert Boston
>wrote about it:  
     "Lastly, anti-separationists point out that Madison
>during his presidency issued proclamations calling for days of prayer and
>fasting. Again, they tell only half of the story. Later in life Madison
>concluded that his actions had been unconstitutional and in a document known
>as the 'Detached Memoranda' listed five reasons why presidents should not
>issue such proclamations.

The Constitution was ratified based in part on Madison's representations of
its meaning in his early life, not his later life. The Detached Memoranda
tell us little about the meaning of the Constitution and its original intent.

Seond, what were the reasons Madison offered as to why Washington and Lincoln
and dozens of other presidents violated the Constitution by declaring
national days of prayer? Was one of them because that right rests with the
states, not the feds?

Madison's views in the Detached Memoranda are HARDLY representative of
American Constitutional Law at the time of its ratification. They cannot
determine its meaning.


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



Subject: Blasphemy laws
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA26894@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971203235800.SAA13764@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes (quoting Rob Boston):

>   What is rarely pointed out is that Story's church-state views were quite
>extreme, even by the standards of today's Religious Right. He defended
>Massachusetts' harsh system of church establishment all of his life and
>advocated strict enforcement of blasphemy laws and religious tests for
public
>office, all clear violations of the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution "clearly" prohibit blasphemy laws?

Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone's Commentaries
with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.
Blackstone said:

      Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence 
      or uttering contumelious [insulting] reproaches on our Savior Christ. 
      It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for 
      Christianity is part of the laws of the land.

Did the Constitution declare that Christianity was no longer a part of the
law of the land? That certainly would have been news to a lot of people.

Blackstone's Commentaries were eventually replaced by Kent's Commentaries as
the standard for American Law. Kent wrote concerning blasphemy:

      Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, 
      it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against 
      religion and morality which have no reference to any such 
      establishment . . . .  This [constitutional] declaration (noble and 
      magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to 
      withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of 
      moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of 
      the law. . . .  To construe it [the constitution] as breaking down 
      the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious 
      attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion 
      of its meaning.

I can't think of a single state that did not have blasphemy laws for decades
after the Constitution was ratified. Even Jefferson wrote, 

      While we deny that [the federal] Congress have the right to control 
      the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the 
      States, and their exclusive right, to do so. 
      [Letter to Abigail Adams, 9/11/1804]

So many things are "clear" to proponents of secularism.

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



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA25425@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204025401.VAA03894@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
portnoyr@aol.com (PortnoyR) writes:

>Anyone who believes a family should be allowed to use tax dollars to pay (in
>part or in total) for private education is supporting a tax to support
>Christian ministers.
The Grunge Diva
aka
Rachel

Who believes this? Who believes tax dollars should be used for private
schools?

Oh, wait a minute . . . are you saying that I should be forced to pay taxes
for schools which are based on the religion of Secular Humanism, but no tax
dollars should go to schools teaching any other religious view? My money can
be taken from me to teach Secular Humanism, but once the State takes it from
me, it cannot allow me to use that money on a private school???

I firmly and unequivocally oppose taxes for Christian ministers. But you're
saying the State has the right to spend my money on the education IT thinks
is best for my children.

Blind faith in the State.

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



Subject: Re: Loss of Teaching
(fiction)
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA26902@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204030901.WAA05928@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
portnoyr@aol.com (PortnoyR) writes:

>It's appauling, I don't know how they can expect children to grow up to be
>contributing members of society when they don't even teach the basics.

I
>have to blame myself.  After all, if I had taken a little more active role
in
>my kids education, I would have noticed earlier that I cannot trust this
>church to teach my children about anything but the Bible, and I will have to
>find another source for their general education.

Something really should be
>done about this!



I'm certainly appaulled.

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #1
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA25434@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204024801.VAA03166@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>But those Israelites who did mark their doorposts as directed were "passed
>over" by the worst of the plagues.  They were not held responsible for the
>actions of the government, nor was the government saved by their action.
The
>nation of Israel was not to be confused with the government of Egypt.
>Similarly, the nation of Christians in America should not be confused with
>the U.S. Government.

Or would you have the plagues visit everyone
>regardless?


The Bible says Christians are a "holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9). No one could
possibly confuse Christians with the femin-nazi Bush-Clinton regime. But the
question here is, By what right, by what Authority, by what Standard does the
Bush-Clinton regime tax, imprison, and kill? Without exception, early
American law was based on Biblical Authority. Not one government in North
America prior to 1789 was based on anything but the claim that "the Bible
commands
us to do this."

Now the government claims autonomy. The government is Egypt. There are lots
of Christians who are getting ready for the plagues to come down on this
secular abomination. Other Christians are calling the State to repentance, to
reject autonomy and put itself back under the Authority of the Bible.

But I get the feeling this is not what you advocate, right Ed?

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



Subject: Mayflower Compact
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA26912@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204024100.VAA03772@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>The Mayflower Compact, which was the document that got those "Theocratic
>Puritans" on shore and out of the vomitorium the boat had become, is
>celebrated correctly as the first case of self government in the new world.
>It was a contract between each and every family -- two-thirds of whom were
>non-Puritan
entrepreneurs, by the way -- to be bound by laws that the group
>would make in a fair manner -- sans the approval of the King or Parliament,

Are you sure? My copy reads:

      In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names 
      at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our 
      Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, 
      the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. 
      Anno Domini, 1620."


>sans the approval of the Pope or any Christian authority, 

What do you mean by "Christian authority"? You mean an ecclesiastical
institution? Granted. Big Deal. Or by "Christian authority" do you mean the
Bible? If so, you are mistaken. The Compact reads:

      "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the 
      Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the 
      Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender 
      of the Faith, e&.

      Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement 
      of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and 
      Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern 
      parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and 
      mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant 
      and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, 
      for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance 
      of the Ends aforesaid; 

The Authority of God was the authority by which they acted. It is the
Authority which you apparently deny, thus placing yourself squarely outside
of the mainstream of American Law up until the rise of the centralized
fascist state in the secular 20th century.

>The Mayflower Compact was the first case of "we the people"
>setting up what Lincoln later called government of, by and for the people.  

You may be unaware of the fact, but Lincoln was not, that that phrase [of, by
and for the people] is a distinctly Christian one, first put forth by John
Wyclife, who said of his English Bible, "This Bible is for the government of
the people, by the people, and for the people." His was an attack on Rome and
autonomous princes, and a declaration that the people themselves should not
only read and know that law [the Bible], but also should in some sense
govern as well as be governed by it. Thus Fredrich Heer, in his *Intellectual
History of Europe*, wrote that "Wyclife and Hus were the first to demonstrate
to Europe the possibility of an alliance between the university and the
people's yearning for salvation. It was the freedom of Oxford that sustained
Wyclife." The concern was less with church or state than with government by
the law-word of God.


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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #2
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA26920@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204024900.VAA03338@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>One of the greatest American constitutional scholars, Justice
>Joseph Story, authored a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Sup Ct in which he
>said that "deism" was a "form of infidelity" which was contrary to American
>law and could not be taught in the schools. <<

>Story was just wrong on this point.  And
>what case would that be, Kevin?  After finding Barton 180 degrees wrong on
>Holy Trinity and Vidal, I almost can't wait to find out which one he got
>wrong, next.

Vidal. Why am I not surprised you missed it?

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



Subject: Re: Ed's Messageboard
Malpractice #4
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 00:53 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971204055300.AAA25436@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204023500.VAA03025@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin continued:  >>This case and the Holy Trinity case are clear evidence
>that the Constitution was never understood to require the state to remove
>prayer and Bible reading from the schools. The cases are evidence that the
>post-Everson Court has lied, misrepresenting American history and the
>Constitution.<<

Not at all.  The case makes it clear that there was no
>expectation under the Constitution that the Bible would be, or should be,
>part of the everyday curriculum of a school.  Kevin makes it clear that both
>parties expected the court to say that Christianity was essential to the
>upbringing of the children, and the best hoped for was that this one clause
>in the will would be struck.  But the Court let it stand.

The Court said no provision of any will could be interpreted in such a way as
to remove Christianity from any school. The Court said the Bible "MUST" be
taught to youth in schools. You are TOTALLY misrepresenting the character of
this case, Ed. Did you read post #3? 

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:07 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204100701.FAA09832@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I noted that
Jefferson's famous response to a request for a presidential proclamation for
prayer was made with the full knowledge that individual states had already
gotten out of the religion business.  Kevin replied:  

>>Prove it. The states most assuredly did have such power, and it was
continually exercised. Absolutely ludicrous assertion. Your position would
have us believe there was no Thanksgiving Day after the First Amendment.
EARTH TO ED!! Jefferson was alone in his belief that the President of the
U.S. could not lead the nation in prayer, and his belief did not stop the
rest of the nation.<<

All states had disestablished by Jefferson's presidency, with the exception
that four states kept some support for generic Christianity; all four of
these completely disestablished by 1833 (Massachusetts stood alone from
1816).  You claim that the states "continually exercised" a power to
establish churches and interfere in religion?  I think THAT assertion is
worthy of proof, and you offer no evidence.  We've discussed this before, and
I think it
dissembling for you to ask me to prove the negative.

Jefferson was not alone.  The First Amendment won approval of the requisite
two-thirds of both federal legislative houses, and of the requisite number of
states (at least nine) to become part of the constitution.  In the face of
such overwhelming support for religious freedom, I think it odd of you to
argue that it did not exist.

Did presidents make proclamations?  Sure.  Does that evidence any power on
the part of the federal government in the sphere of religion?  Well, the
proclamations are non-binding, non-precedential -- the presidential
equivalent of obiter dicta.  If you want to establish that the government HAD
the power you claim, you need to come up with something stronger than Ronald
Reagan's proclamation of National Pickle Month, or its colonial equivalent.

>>In your quest to exclude Christian principles from American government, 
you are grasping for something in Jefferson and overlooking the fact that all
the rest of early America is against your viewpoint.<<

You ascribe to me a quest I do not pursue.  My quest is to make the world
safe for religious freedom, the sort of freedom that Constantine granted
Christianity in the Roman Empire that led to an early flowering of that
religion.  That view was shared by almost all of colonial America, and
especially those who wrote the laws.

Your evidence of a presidential proclamation does not repeal nor alter the
fact that the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution create a
separation of church and state that is wise in concept and practice.  

The proclamations merely indicate, again, that our nation tolerates a wide
variety of religious expressions by all citizens.  That is one of my points
which it might do you some good to note.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:10 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204101001.FAA08401@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>I'm unclear on the ref to the SupCt. When exactly did they go back to
Jefferson, to establish what point?<<

Several times since religion became an issue before the Court they have gone
to the history books and the law books to see what they could find.  When the
Court refers to a "wall of separation" between government and religion, it is
from borrowing the phrase directly from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury
Baptists.  Do you really need citations?

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:14 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204101401.FAA09981@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>But don't try to convince me that the Constitution prohibits the State from
implementing Biblical Law, because history and the first hundred years of
SupCt decisions goes against you.<<

Any state may implement "Biblical law" to the extent allowed under the U.S.
Constitution.  Which is to say that it must square with the First Amendment.

The issue was not raised before the Supreme Court in the first hundred years
of the republic -- was it?  You've not cited a case.

For that matter, it's not been raised since, either.  Biblical law is a dead
letter in a democratic republic that guarantees freedom of conscience.
Biblical law tends to lack important due process protections, run afoul of
amendments four through eight, in addition to being very, very unpopular.

The Constitution is clear on how to make the laws.  Incorporation of the
Bible is not one of the methods.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:24 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204102401.FAA08714@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said, of
early presidential proclamations of thanksgiving:  >>The point is, they
believed the government had a duty to God. Secularists deny that the State
must conform itself to God's Law. They tell us that the Constitution
prohibits government from acknowledging its obligation to and dependence upon
God. These presidents show that the secularists are wrong; the constitution
does not
prohibit this.<<

1.  If government had a duty to God, why didn't the president order the
government to stand down for the day?  Between Washington and Lincoln, and
between Lincoln and FDR, proclamations for thanksgiving most often failed to
include any provisions for any time off for anyone under federal jurisdiction
to give the thanks.  

2.  If government has a duty to God, why don't the proclamations say so?
Usually they urge the people to give thanks.  At no time does any president
order the slaughter and sacrifice of a calf, or anything else.  Only the
trees and dinosaurs that go into the printing of the proclamation are
sacrificed, and then not in accordance with any Biblical law.

3.  Kevin makes the great leap error -- from errant and occasional
presidential proclamations that we have stuff to be thankful for, to a duty
of the U.S. government to worship the God of Jehovah.  I keep asking for a
link, but get none.  If these proclamations are indeed calling government to
obey God, then we should look for some signs -- such as, the proclamations
would not apply equally to Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists,
Zoroastrians, and atheists; the ritual sacrifices called for in the Bible;
maybe a ritual stoning of a heretic, blasphemer or adulterer (just kidding --
but SOME action would be evidence, more than no action); or something more
than "give thanks and eat turkey."  

As evidence for religious duties of the government, these proclamations are
very weak tea.  They don't refute, repeal, or affect the First Amendment.
They are non-binding.  They are non-sectarian. 

The government is bound to respect Kevin's belief that HE ought to give
thanks to God, and to the God of Abraham.  But the government is not bound to
do so itself (and is in fact prevented).

Ed



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:35 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204103501.FAA10466@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>I don't think you understand the issue behind Madison's "M&R." He opposed a
tax to support Christian ministers. Name one person on this board who
believes the state should levy a tax to support Christian ministers. Name one
person in the USA who believes this. Everybody believes in this kind of
"separation." Nobody defends this kind of "establishment."<<

This is a very limited view.  As Madison pointed out, ALL entanglements
between government and religion are to be avoided.  Read the entire M&R.  The
tax was just the thing that provoked the furor.  

Remember that the result of this discussion was total repudiation of Patrick
Henry's bill to support clergy, AND the passage of the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom.  That law is unmistakably clear in saying that every man's
conscience is to be respected.  Biblical law is not an option under this law,
which is still in effect in Virginia unamended, and which is summarized
neatly in the First Amendment.

Kevin continues:  >>Here's another quote from Madison's *Memorial*  which
could equally be taken out of context:

      5. Because the Bill implies that the Civil Magistrate is a competent 
          Judge of Religious Truth;

Every time the Civil Magistrate passes a law it proclaims itself a competent
judge of religious truth. When it passes a law against murder it is saying
that those who practice religious cannibalism are wrong. When it passes a law
against polygamy it delcares Mormonism to be wrong. When it outlaws theft and
assassination, it outlaws the followers of Kali. The creation of a civil
magistrate is the establishment of a religion, and Madison did not deny
this.<<

This is poppycock.  Civil laws predate Christianity -- by several thousand
years.  Every culture on earth has a compunction against murder, and
philosophers agree that no religious view is necessary to justify such laws.
In point of law and fact, no religious philosophy is required to justify
anti-murder laws in the U.S. -- only that a government authority pass such a
law.  Legal rulings do not all reflect religious philosophy.  

Followers of Kali do not believe in theft as an article of religion, nor do
they believe assassination murder -- nor does their underlying religion
condone murder.  By this same token, Kevin, our laws against murder prohibit
the Biblical practice of stoning adulterers, heretics, blasphemers, and
unruly children.  Do you seriously believe this impinges on Judaism or
Christianity?   If you answer in the negative, then you agree that such bans
do not
infringe on religious practices of the followers of Kali (please document
they consider murder a religious right or ritual, BTW).  If you answer in the
affirmative, then you refute your contention that the framers intended this
to be a Christian nation.  Pick your poison.

If Madison did not deny that the establishment of civil authority was a
religion, it is because the idea is too silly to contemplate.

Ed



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204104201.FAA09124@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The "Lemon" test articulated by the US Sup Ct would *invalidate* Madison's
"M&R" based on this consideration. 
Let that fact sink in. You support a doctrine of "separation of church and
state" and defend it with Madison, when that doctrine would have nullified
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance!!!<<

I let it sink in.  Kevin, you need to get more sleep.  This is as silly an
idea as any I've seen in a long, long time.

The test used by the Court since Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602, 29 L. Ed.
2d 745, 91 S. Ct. 2104 (1971)) would do nothing to impinge on Madison's right
to write and publish the *Memorial and Remonstrance*.  The three tests from
the Lemon case are that the law 1. have a valid secular purpose, 2. neither
advance nor inhibit religion, 3., not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.

Since the M&R is not a law, it doesn't qualify for the test.  Since the M&R
prompted a law that restates in more eloquent terms the requirements of the
Lemon test, I'd say you really need to get more sleep.

Ed



Subject: Creationism?  
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:47 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204104700.FAA10709@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>You may recall a creationist statute which was thrown out by the Sup Ct
because, even though the statute itself had absolutely no reference to God or
religion and was completely secular, it was determined that some of the
legislators thought the bill would help Christianity. This proves that the
current doctrine of "separation of church and state" cannot appeal to
Madison.<<

Your facts are almost correct.  The Court found that the sole purpose for the
law was to promote the cult of creationism.  Earlier decisions determined
that there is no non-secular creationism, that creationism is itself
religious dogma with no foundation outside Genesis -- and that one cult's
reading of Genesis.

Kevin, you argue that when Washington refers to "providence" he really means
"the God of Abraham."  Now you argue that because this law supposedly made no
reference to "God" it was secular?  Please conform your arguments.

Creationism is religion; the First Amendment prohibits the government from
teaching religion.

And creationism without God is mighty odd religion, I might add.

Ed



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact --
oaths
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:51 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204105101.FAA09351@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>What do you mean by "Christian authority"? You mean an ecclesiastical
institution? Granted. Big Deal. Or by "Christian authority" do you mean the
Bible? If so, you are mistaken. The Compact reads:

      "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the 
      Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the 
      Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender 
      of the Faith, e&.<<

Kevin, I almost hesitate to point out to you that the language you cite is an
oath to follow the agreement, not the agreement itself.  These people used an
oath because they did not have seals.

Didn't we get into this discussion over oaths?

Ed



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 05:54 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971204105401.FAA10880@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin quotes
the Compact and adds comments:  >>

      Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement 
      of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and 
      Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern 
      parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and 
      mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant 
      and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, 
      for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance 
      of the Ends aforesaid; 

The Authority of God was the authority by which they acted. It is the
Authority which you apparently deny, thus placing yourself squarely outside
of the mainstream of American Law up until the rise of the centralized
fascist state in the secular 20th century.<<

No, not authority of God.  Read it again.  "For the glory of God."

Ed
Subject: By what authority? Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 10:27 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971204152700.KAA24029@ladder02.news.aol.com> Kevin said: >>The Bible says Christians are a "holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9). No one could possibly confuse Christians with the femin-nazi Bush-Clinton regime.<< Then the Bible makes a distinction between the people and the state that you refuse to make. That's what this discussion is about. You're asking the state to do religious duties, forgetting the lamentations of Samuel about Saul. "Femin-nazi?" Even for the Limbaugh league, this is a new use for a poorly-chosen fighting epithet. Especially applying it to the Bush administration is a new use. Barbara Bush may wish to box your ears. Kevin said: >>But the question here is, By what right, by what Authority, by what Standard does the Bush-Clinton regime tax, imprison, and kill?<< See the Preamble to the Constitution. The power of government in the U.S. comes from the consent of the people. "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of America," is what the Constitution says. All governments in the U.S. are authorized by this simple device: The consent of the governed. All authority, for the federal government, and for all other governmental entities flows from this clause. This is why it was required that the people of each state elect a convention to approve the constitution, rather than let the legislatures do it -- there was never any question about letting the churches do it. Legally, historically, government power comes from the people. It is simply wrong to say government in the U.S. is by authority of the Bible. The Constitution is absolutely clear that the source of authority is the people of the U.S. Ed Subject: No Biblical govts pre-1789 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 10:28 EST From: EDarr1776 Message-id: <19971204152800.KAA24108@ladder02.news.aol.com> Kevin said: >>Without exception, early American law was based on Biblical Authority. Not one government in North America prior to 1789 was based on anything but the claim that "the Bible commands us to do this."<< See what happens when xian revisionists get hold of history books? This statement is so bad it is not even wrong. It is difficult to find any government in North America prior to 1789 (or after) which is based on Biblical Authority. Mexico, perhaps -- but not the U.S. There were three basic designs of government in North America prior to 1789, and only one was religiously related, though not "Bible-based". Kelly and Harbison in *The American Constitution* say the merchant capitalists who looked for new markets, raw materials and trade, "quite naturally founded governments in their colonies closely modeled uon joint-stock corporate structure." The religious refugees, mostly English Calvinists, also avoided a "Bible-based" government -- Kelly and Harbison note they followed their custom of church rule by compact (that is, a contract between members) by mutual consent, and they formed poltical bodies of the same type (the point every reputable historian makes about the Mayflower Compact, that it was government of the people by their consent -- not divine right in any form). The Stuart courtiers, "holding a feudal grant from the Crown, attempted to organize colonial government as a feudal barony." Kelly and Harbison conclude: "Thus the three early types of colony -- joint stock, compact, and proprietary -- all resulted from some form of private initiative." Joint-stock companies included Virginia and Massachusetts Bay. That these were primarily commercial ventures and not religious is reinforced by the Cambridge Agreement of 1629, by which the religious faction of the Massachusetts Bay Company ceded trading rights to the entrepreneurial faction, and in return got the right to move the seat of government from London to Massachusetts. As English corporations, it was only natural that the seat of power be in London. Compact governments included Plymouth, Providence, Connecticut and New Haven. These were organized along Calvinist lines -- but it is important to know that Calvinist theology holds that every man is ultimately his own source of authority in religious matters. The governments were organized similarly, with the people in control, not the Bible. The proprietary colonies, the Stuart feudal grants, include Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Carolinas, and Georgia. The charter for the Maryland colony granted the proprietor "complete control over local adminsitration, lawmaking, and military matters in his province. He could establish an assembly, but was not required to do so. All writs ran in his name, and no appeals could be taken to England from his courts." (Kelly and Harbison) The grant to William Penn required an assembly, hardly a step toward Biblical control. No major provision of the charter said anything about Biblical law, though one provision for religious freedom was included: Penn had to agree to allow the erection of Anglican churches in any town where 20 citizens petitioned for one (Penn was not Anglican, you will recall). In the Carolinas, a constitution was drawn up by John Locke, reflecting the proprietors' desire to create a feudal establishment. Penn lost his grant for a time when James II fell, and by the time he regained it in 1694, the Pennsylvania Assembly was beyond his control. Though he was nominally the sovereign, he was forced to accept the growing power of self-government, and in 1701, the "Charter of Liberties," which gave all real power to the legislature. Not God, not the Bible -- the legislature. Not only is it error to say "Not one government in North America prior to 1789 was based on anything but the claim that 'the Bible commands us to do this,' "it is difficult to find one that actually is. You could look it up. Ed Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA17286@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204101401.FAA09981@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Any state may implement "Biblical law" to the extent allowed under the U.S. >Constitution. Which is to say that it must square with the First Amendment. Your thinking is totally backwards. Biblical Law does not have to "square with the First Amendment," the First Amendment was demanded by the states to guarantee that the feds didn't interfere with their implementation of Biblical Law. So, for example, the states had test oaths until 1961, when the Supreme Court adopted your secularist understanding of the constitution. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA18888@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971204101401.FAA09981@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >The issue was not raised before the Supreme Court in the first hundred years >of the republic -- was it? You've not cited a case. I cited James Kent's opinion in the blasphemy case. The defendant argued that the First Amendment gave him the right to blaspheme. Kent rightly concluded that Biblical Law takes precedent over, indeed undergirds, the First Amendment. The Holy Trinity Court noted that federal courts in the 19th century did not often rule on religion. First, because law had not been federalized as it has been in the secular 20th century. Second, because the issue was well understood, and with the exception of a few cranks like the blasphemy case above, and the rantings of a few secularists like "Col." Ingersoll, everyone understood America to be a Christian nation. >For that matter, it's >not been raised since, either. Biblical law is a dead letter in a democratic >republic that guarantees freedom of conscience. Biblical law tends to lack >important due process protections, run afoul of amendments four through >eight, in addition to being very, very unpopular. This is a dream world. Absolute nonsense. Read Blackstone. All of our rights and due process protections come from the Bible. Do you think rights four through eight have been better guarded in the last few decades as Biblical faith has waned? Our Christian forefathers fought a revolution over a tax rate which scholars estimate to have been less than 5%. Our government intrudes to the tune of TEN TIMES that rate and secularists don't bat an eye. Do you think the Bible authorizes "zero tolerance" property seizures?!? And "unpopular?" Ridiculous. Only with a handful of self-appointed secular elitists. In fact, admit that your whole argument is that the majority prefers (parts of) Biblical Law and you're trying to twist the constitution into protecting a relative handful of homosexuals and atheists. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA17315@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204101401.FAA09981@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >The Constitution is clear on how to make the laws. Incorporation of the >Bible is not one of the methods. The Constitution is not clear. Statutes were self-consciously drafted by following the Bible, and many codes had the Biblical references annotated in the margins. This was the clear pattern in New England, and throughout the colonies. NOTHING in the Constitution overturns Blackstone and the whole common law tradition of turning to the Bible for civil and criminal law. You are imposing your dreams on the historical record, Ed. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA18917@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971204100701.FAA09832@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >I noted that Jefferson's famous response to a request for a presidential >proclamation for prayer was made with the full knowledge that individual >states had already gotten out of the religion business. Kevin replied: > >>Prove it. The states most assuredly did have such power, and it was >continually exercised. Absolutely ludicrous assertion. Your position would >have us believe there was no Thanksgiving Day after the First Amendment. >EARTH TO ED!! Jefferson was alone in his belief that the President of the >U.S. could not lead the nation in prayer, and his belief did not stop the >rest of the nation.<< >All states had disestablished by Jefferson's >presidency, with the exception that four states kept some support for generic >Christianity; all four of these completely disestablished by 1833 >(Massachusetts stood alone from 1816). You claim that the states >"continually exercised" a power to establish churches and interfere in >religion? I think THAT assertion is worthy of proof, and you offer no >evidence. We've discussed this before, and I think it dissembling for you to >ask me to prove the negative. You are once again completely equivocating. "Disestablish" means no more gov't funds for particular religious establishments. It's a dead horse. The Thanksgiving proclamations are evidence that this nation turned to the Bible for Authority. Lincoln said governments have duties toward God, and he quoted Scripture to establish that policy. That is the basic proposition we should be debating. Jefferson was confused and inconsistent on this point. He did not deny Lincoln's faith; as he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." If he really trembled he should have (IMHO) led the country in getting it together. It simply cannot be the case that all of the many presidents who made proclamations similar to Lincoln's either didn't understand basic American government or deliberately violated the Constitution. It cannot be the case that only Jefferson and (the later) Madison understood the Constitution. The faith exhibited inLincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation dominated this county and its law-making for its first 100 years. The current secular jurisprudence was not MANDATED by the Constitution, it was imposed on this country by Secular Humanist judicial activists. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA17365@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204100701.FAA09832@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >You ascribe to me a quest I do not pursue. My quest is to make the world >safe for religious freedom, the sort of freedom that Constantine granted >Christianity in the Roman Empire that led to an early flowering of that >religion. That view was shared by almost all of colonial America, and >especially those who wrote the laws. You baffle me, Ed. Your off-the-cuff historiography is amazing. Absolutely bizarre. You sound relatively rational, and your posts sometimes sound well-informed. But I sure don't get this one. Madison was an OPPONENT of Constantinianism, as was Roger Williams. From Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance: 6.Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits. 7.Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest? As a follower of the executed Christ, I oppose Constantinianism. I'm getting together a few essays I wrote years ago on the Anabaptists of the 16th century. Outline at http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/anabaptists/table.htm My quest is to bring every human activity under God's Law. If you're going to have an Empire, the leaders are obligated to follow Biblical Law. Doing so will, of course, put most Empires out of business. Your quest seems to be an autonomous state, unaccountable to any morality except its own ad hoc whims. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/95theses/paradigm.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God for Separation #4 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA18952@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971204100701.FAA09832@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >The [Thanksgiving] proclamations merely indicate, again, that our nation tolerates a wide >variety of religious expressions by all citizens. That is one of my points >which it might do you some good to note. Then why was Jefferson opposed to them? The Christian common law tolerates a wide variety of religious expressions WITHIN CHRISTIANITY. Dunk em or sprinkle em, we don't care. Wine or grape juice, it don't matter. Marry six wives at the same time: forget it. Build a pyramid in your back yard and cut open your virgin daughter to give her heart to the sun-god? No way. No matter how sincere your religious beliefs, you will not be tolerated. Even Jefferson did not disagree with this, and Madison spoke of "false religions" and nations that lived "in darkness." The Thanksgiving proclamations prove this WAS a Christian nation. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Madison on Separation Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:11 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011100.UAA17383@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204104201.FAA09124@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >The three tests from the Lemon case are that the law 1. have a valid secular >purpose, 2. neither advance nor inhibit religion, 3., not foster an excessive >government entanglement with religion. >Since the M&R is not a law, it >doesn't qualify for the test. You missed the point entirely. Madison argued for his bill based on a non-secular purpose, as well as the fact that it would advance Christianity. He appealed for passage of the law based on non-secular grounds, because this was a Christian nation. Now, today, in a secular nation, a legislature which directs its schools to present scientific facts which are suppressed by devotees of the Darwinist religion will have that law struck down even though the law on its face meets all three Lemon tests, simply because some of the legislators thought the law would help Christianity. Secular Humanism's use of Madison is inconsistent and hypocritical. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com./Patriarchy/Christmas/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Madison on Separation Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:12 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011200.UAA19036@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971204103501.FAA10466@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: Kevin continues: >Every time the Civil Magistrate passes a law it proclaims itself a competent >judge of religious truth. When it passes a law against murder it is saying >that those who practice religious cannibalism are wrong. When it passes a law >against polygamy it delcares Mormonism to be wrong. When it outlaws theft and >assassination, it outlaws the followers of Kali. The creation of a civil >magistrate is the establishment of a religion, and Madison did not >deny this.<< >This is poppycock. Civil laws predate Christianity -- by >several thousand years. If you believe the Bible, God gave laws in the Garden of Eden. Obviously you don't believe the Bible, so you believe that law is man-made. You are out of touch with the thinking of the vast majority of people in the pre-20th century Christian West. >Every culture on earth has a compunction against >murder, and philosophers agree that no religious view is necessary to justify >such laws. Only secular philosophers agree to this. I have cited so many Founders and jurists such as Blackstone to the contrary that it's ridiculous to cite them again. The Founders of this country believed that Christianity was necessary for the prosperity of our government. >In point of law and fact, no religious philosophy is required to >justify anti-murder laws in the U.S. -- only that a government authority pass >such a law. OK, so you're a positivist. You are in the minority, historically speaking, and it is dishonest for you to portray your positivism as the majority viewpoint. >Followers of Kali do not believe in theft as an article of religion, nor do >they believe assassination murder -- nor does their underlying religion >condone murder. By this same token, Kevin, our laws against murder prohibit >the Biblical practice of stoning adulterers, heretics, blasphemers, and >unruly children. Do you seriously believe this impinges on Judaism or >Christianity? IF the Bible says politicians have an obligation to execute murderers, then a politician's refusal to carry out his duty does not impinge on my obedience. I don't believe in capital punishment, but I agree with Lincoln and all the Founders that politicians have a duty to God, and they better find out what it is. >If you answer in the negative, then you agree that such bans >do not infringe on religious practices of the followers of Kali (please >document they consider murder a religious right or ritual, BTW). No, if a religion says sacrifice or holy war is an obligation of all its followers, then an anti-sacrifice law impinges on the religious free exercise of the followers. CLEARLY, Ed, the anti-polygamy laws infringed the "free exercise of [Mormon] religion." >If you >answer in the affirmative, then you refute your contention that the framers >intended this to be a Christian nation. Pick your poison. Nothing could be more poisonous that the secularism of Leo Pfeffer, who argued the Torcaso case. He writes: [T]he standard legal definition of the term "religion" is the one given by the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason: "The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." This would seem to have been a fairly workable definition for the time when it was formulated (i.e., when religion assumed a belief in a deity); but in the same case the court said that to call the Mormons' advocacy of polygamy "a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind"; and the same court could not accept as "religion" the belief of the "Thugs of India" in assassination or the belief in "human sacrifices by our ancestors in Britain." (*Church,State and Freedom*, 1967, p. 607) As Torcaso did, and Everson before, Pfeffer turns to Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance in an attempt to shore up a viewpoint which looks as though it is going to lend moral sanction to assassination and human sacrifice: [But] Madison characterized as an "arrogant pretension" the implication that "the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truths." To a substantial extent, the same characterization is appropriate to an implication that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of what constitutes religion. Madison was clearly influenced by Enlightenment and Masonic influences, but he still spoke of "religion" as "the duty which we owe to our Creator." This goes against contemporary secular First Amendment jurisprudence: It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. This is precisely why Maryland (and other states) required that before he be admitted to a "subordinate Association" of Civil Society, Torcaso affirm his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. A "religious test" was simply a test of an "acceptable" way of "render[ing] to the Creator such homage" as was due, and the specificity of dispute between, e.g., the Baptists and the Episcopalians, was beyond the scope of the Civil Magistrate. But broadly speaking, Madison recognized the existence of "false Religions" and "nations who continue in darkness," in stark contrast to the post-World War II Courts which so frequently cite him. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:12 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011200.UAA17464@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204105401.FAA10880@ladder01.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >Kevin quotes the Compact and adds comments: >> Having undertaken for >the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the >Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in >the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and >mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and >combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better >Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; > >The Authority of God was the authority by which they acted. It is the >Authority which you apparently deny, thus placing yourself squarely outside >of the mainstream of American Law up until the rise of the centralized >fascist state in the secular 20th century.<< >No, not authority of God. Read >it again. "For the glory of God." There is no difference. This argument is pure sophism. Obedience glorifies God, as any good Puritan could tell you. What they did they did out of obedience to God. Including the establishment of civil government. The next sentence reads, do by the presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and Furtherance of other Ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most [suitable] and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience." In other words, the laws were the means to the end of glorifying God. MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER, 1629: "Our said People. . . may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversacon maie wynn and incite the Natives of [that] Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the onlie true God and Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which in our Royall Intencon . . . is the principall Ende of this Plantacon." NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of Mass., Conn., New Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ." NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNMENT, 1639: "Considering with ourselves the holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we should not live without wholesome Lawes and Civil Government among us of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the Sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the Will of God." NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction." WITHIN CHRISTIANITY, the Constitution recognizes religious freedom. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/08theocracy.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: By what authority? Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:12 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011200.UAA19062@ladder01.news.aol.com> In article <19971204152700.KAA24029@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes: >It is simply wrong to say government in the U.S. is by authority of the >Bible. The Constitution is absolutely clear that the source of authority is >the people of the U.S. If you are right then I will work to overthrow the Constitution. You are wrong, of course, and all of the Founders (except the later Madison, perhaps) would deny that the authority for government came from the people acting autonomously and rebelliously against God. As Lincoln put it, any nation that acts outside the authority of God is doomed. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: No Biblical govts pre-1789 Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:14 EST From: KEVIN4VFT Message-id: <19971205011200.UAA17491@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19971204152800.KAA24108@ladder02.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes a long, drawn out, scholarly-sounding post which focuses on the power of legislatures vs. courts or churches etc.etc., and is completely and utterly misguided: > >Compact governments included Plymouth, Providence, Connecticut and New >Haven. These were organized along Calvinist lines -- but it is important to >know that Calvinist theology holds that every man is ultimately his own >source of authority in religious matters. This is an incredible, bizarre, unbelievable statement. Calvinism, the most rigorously Biblical brand of Christianity, is in fact a species of Humanism?!?!? Unbelievable. >The governments were organized >similarly, with the people in control, not the Bible. Bluff again, Ed. Read my quotes in the Mayflower post: NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction." >The proprietary >colonies, the Stuart feudal grants, include Maryland, New York, New Jersey, >Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Carolinas, and Georgia. The charter for the >Maryland colony granted the proprietor "complete control over local >adminsitration, lawmaking, and military matters in his province. He could >establish an assembly, but was not required to do so. All writs ran in his >name, and no appeals could be taken to England from his courts." (Kelly and >Harbison) The grant to William Penn required an assembly, hardly a step >toward Biblical control. No major provision of the charter said anything >about Biblical law, though one provision for religious freedom was included: >Penn had to agree to allow the erection of Anglican churches in any town >where 20 citizens petitioned for one (Penn was not Anglican, you will >recall). In the Carolinas, a constitution was drawn up by John >Locke, reflecting the proprietors' desire to create a feudal >establishment. This all has to do with separation of powers. Thegovernment as a whole was obligated to follow God's Law. All of the material on your post does not contradict this fact. Locke wrote: [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. [Two Treatises on Govenment, Bk II sec 135 quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity {shows Puritan influence}] All governments were based on this general authority, regardless of what specific form they took (monarchical, parliamentarian, bi-cameral, -- whatever!). >Penn lost his grant for a time when James II fell, and by the >time he regained it in 1694, the Pennsylvania Assembly was beyond his >control. Though he was nominally the sovereign, he was forced to accept the >growing power of self-government, and in 1701, the "Charter of Liberties," >which gave all real power to the legislature. Not God, not the Bible -- the >legislature. But the legislature was required, and required itself, to legislate in accord with Biblical law. >Not only is it error to say "Not one government in North >America prior to 1789 was based on anything but the claim that 'the Bible >commands us to do this,' "it is difficult to find one that actually is. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/oath/HolyTrinity.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 Subject: Re: Madison on Separation Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:13 EST From: Witchward Message-id: <19971205011300.UAA17583@ladder02.news.aol.com>
<<< Every culture on earth has
a compunction against murder, and philosophers agree that no religious view
is necessary to justify such laws. >>>

Just one point here, this statement by Ed has Biblical backing. The Egyptians
found Moses guilty of murder prior to Moses receiving the ten commandments.
Read Exodus if you don't believe me!
Witchward
The Goddess is Alive,
and Magick is afoot!



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205011300.UAA19099@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204102401.FAA08714@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said, of early presidential proclamations of thanksgiving:  >>The
point
>is, they believed the government had a duty to God. Secularists deny that
the
>State must conform itself to God's Law. They tell us that the Constitution
>prohibits government from acknowledging its obligation to and dependence
upon
>God. These presidents show that the secularists are wrong; the constitution
>does not
prohibit this.<<

2.  If government
>has a duty to God, why don't the proclamations say so?  

They do:

      It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence 
      upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and 
      transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that 
      genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize 
      the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven 
      by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

How could it be any plainer?

>Usually they urge the
>people to give thanks.  At no time does any president order the slaughter
and
>sacrifice of a calf, or anything else.  

C'mon Ed. Name one member of the Religious Right who believes the government
should require animal sacrifices. Your posts are more and more full of straw
men.


3.  Kevin makes the great leap error --
>from errant and occasional presidential proclamations that we have stuff to
>be thankful for, to a duty of the U.S. government to worship the God of
>Jehovah.  I keep asking for a link, but get none.  

Lincoln said, NATIONS as well as individuals, and he quoted SCRIPTURE for his
authority.

>If these proclamations are
>indeed calling government to obey God, then we should look for some signs --
>such as, the proclamations would not apply equally to Jews, Christians,
>Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists,
Zoroastrians, and atheists; 

Atheists are required by Scripture to give thanks to God, as are hindus and
all others in this parade of religions. Government is called to obey God.

>the ritual sacrifices
>called for in the Bible; maybe a ritual stoning of a heretic, blasphemer or
>adulterer (just kidding -- but SOME action would be evidence, more than no
>action); or something more than "give thanks and eat turkey."  

I apologize if I don't know when you're kidding.
Here are some signs:

      It is the duty of nations as well as of men to 
      [1] own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; 
      [2} to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, 
      [2a] yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy 
                  and pardon; and 
      [3] to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures 
                  and proven by all history, that 
                  those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord. 

    
>As evidence
>for religious duties of the government, these proclamations are very weak
>tea.  

Good enough for me -- pass the honey!!

>They don't refute, repeal, or affect the First Amendment.  They are
>non-binding.  They are non-sectarian. 

OF COURSE they don't violate the First Amendment. You believe the First
Amendment forbids the government from obeying God, which was never intended
by its ratifiers. They prayers struck down by the Supreme Court were
completely non-sectarisn.

>The government is bound to respect
>Kevin's belief that HE ought to give thanks to God, and to the God of
>Abraham.  But the government is not bound to do so itself (and is in fact
>prevented).

WRONG. Completely, totally wrong. Re-read it. The Government is both bound to
obey God and the First Amendment does not prohibit this. The Amendment
prohibits distinguishing between Baptists and Methodists, but does not
prohibit the distinction between God and Moloch.

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





Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact --
oaths
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205011300.UAA17602@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204105101.FAA09351@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin, I almost hesitate to point out to you that the language you cite is
an
>oath to follow the agreement, not the agreement itself.  These people used
an
>oath because they did not have seals.

Didn't we get into this discussion
>over oaths?

Yes, and maybe I neglected to to get back to this discussion after my
vacation.
I was going to challege you to cite some authority for this oath vs. seal
proposition.
I have cited abundant authority that an oath is by definition a promise made
in the presence and under the authority of God. You never cited any authority
for your "seal" theory. To sign an agreement under oath is to put the entire
venture under the authority of God.

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



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 20:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205011300.UAA19201@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971204104700.FAA10709@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>You may recall a creationist statute which was thrown out by
>the Sup Ct because, even though the statute itself had absolutely no
>reference to God or religion and was completely secular, it was determined
>that some of the legislators thought the bill would help Christianity. This
>proves that the current doctrine of "separation of church and state" cannot
>appeal to Madison.<<

>Your facts are almost correct.  The Court found that
>the sole purpose for the law was to promote the cult of creationism.  

The court's words?

>Earlier
>decisions determined that there is no non-secular creationism, that
>creationism is itself religious dogma with no foundation outside Genesis --
>and that one cult's reading of Genesis.

The statute made absolutely no reference to Genesis or the Bible. Numerous
catastrophists exist independent of Genesis, such as Velikovsky. Why is it
only the cult of Darwin gets to be taught?

>Kevin, you argue that when
>Washington refers to "providence" he really means "the God of Abraham."  Now
>you argue that because this law supposedly made no reference to "God" it was
>secular?  Please conform your arguments.

The First Amendment does not prohibit the teaching that Darwin is not fact.
ALl thestatute mandated was the teaching of those scientific facts which are
uncomfortable for Darwinists.

>Creationism is religion; the First
>Amendment prohibits the government from teaching religion.

Secular Humanism is a religion, according to the Supreme Court. 

Read Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson on Darwin. You write with such a
dogmatic tone. Not one of the Founders would have objected to the Lousiana
statute.

>And creationism
>without God is mighty odd religion, I might add.

Madison said the civil magistrate is not a reliable judge of religion, didn't
he? Yet now you're perfectly comfortable with the feds telling my little
community what we can teach our kids. This is not only bad First Amendment,
it's bad federalism to boot.

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






Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 1997 21:20 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205022000.VAA27132@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205011300.UAA17583@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
witchward@aol.com (Witchward) writes:

><<< Every culture on earth has a compunction against murder, and
philosophers
>agree that no religious view is necessary to justify such laws. >>>

Just one
>point here, this statement by Ed has Biblical backing. The Egyptians found
>Moses guilty of murder prior to Moses receiving the ten commandments. Read
>Exodus if you don't believe me!

Read *Genesis!* Cain's neighbors found him guilty of murder (Gen 4:14). There
were no cultures before that. All law comes from God. Some cultures are
better, some worse, at implementing that Law.

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



Subject: Hey You Two
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 01:33 EST
From: PortnoyR
Message-id: <19971205063300.BAA25830@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Is it just me, or has this board turned into a shouting match between
two people?!?!?

--The Grunge Diva
aka
Rachel


Subject: Re: Hey You Two
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 02:32 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205073200.CAA29816@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205063300.BAA25830@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
portnoyr@aol.com (PortnoyR) writes:

>Is it just me, or has this board turned into a shouting match between two
>people?!?!?

No, it's not just you. It seems to be just me and Ed.
I welcome new shouters -- especially on my side!!

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 03:20 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205082000.DAA02351@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Your thinking is totally backwards. Biblical Law does not have to "square
with the First Amendment," the First Amendment was demanded by the states to
guarantee that the feds didn't interfere with their implementation of
Biblical Law.<<

This view is far enough afield of reality that I'd like to know your sources!

The First Amendment was one of those rights to the people requested by
several states during the ratification process.  The history is well known,
and the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson is widely available.
Madison thought it unnecessary to guarantee the right of every individual to
free thought, since every state already had such a guarantee and
disestablishment was proceeding apace.  Jefferson disagreed, so did several
of the state
conventions.  Chastened at his oversight, and simultaneously heartened that
all Americans had clung so fast to the religious freedoms he'd passed into
law in Virginia, Madison was the chief sponsor of the Bill of Rights,
including the First Amendment.  

Congress beat back more than one attempt to make the amendment only keep the
feds out of state church doings -- indicating, once again, that the intent of
the people was to keep all government out of all of their church dealings,
and to keep the state and the church forever separate.

Jefferson is quite clear in his autobiography about "Biblical law" as it
existed in Virginia.  He and George Mason, and Madison, undertook the
assignment from the legislature to bring Virginia's laws into the 18th
Century.  They disestablished the church and disposed of church lands.  They
abolished the possibility of prosecutions for heresy and blasphemy by the
unique device of codifying the laws, removing jurisdiction from common law
(which gave
local clergy the right to define such crimes and initiate prosecution).  They
wrote religious freedom into the state constitution (the Virginia Bill of
Rights, for which Mason is known); and then finally the secured total freedom
of conscience with the Statute for Religious Freedom.  Except for the latter,
which was not made law until 1786, seven years after its proposal, these
actions were accomplished by the end of 1777.

There is so little "Biblical law" in most state constitutions I can only
assume you've never read one, Kevin.  The federal constitution doesn't touch
on it at all.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 03:48 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205084801.DAA03333@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>I cited James Kent's opinion in the blasphemy case. The defendant argued
that the First Amendment gave him the right to blaspheme. Kent rightly
concluded that Biblical Law takes precedent over, indeed undergirds, the
First Amendment.<<

First you misstate the importance of People v. Ruggles, and now you grossly
overstate the effect of the case.

Leonard Levy, the First Amendment scholar,  gives the case a good treatment
in *Blasphemy* (University of North Carolina Press, 1993).  He notes that for
the first case on blasphemy, it's difficult to study because we have almost
no real record of it.  No one even knows Ruggles' first name.  Levy notes
that Chief Justice James Kent's opinion turned solely on whether blasphemy
could be an offense without a specific statute criminalizing it.  Kent,
ever the conservative, stuck to English common law, which had been adopted
into the New York constitution, relying in part on Taylor's case of 1676.
Blasphemy was a crime to the extent of disorderly conduct.  He said
blaspheming Christianity was a crime because most New Yorkers were Christian.
Other state courts ruled exactly the opposite, including Ohio's, on the basis
that common law did NOT make any religious law the part of any law of any
state.  So at best for your side, Kevin, the case is debatable.

In any case, Ruggles is an anomoly.  There was never another conviction of
blasphemy in the state.

And, in 1821, at the convention to frame a new constitution, a motion was
made by Erastus Root for a religious freedom clause including the phrase,
"judiciary shall not declare any particular religion to be the law of the
land.  Root slammed the Ruggles decision as making the sheriff of New York
City a blasphemer, as he was a Jew.

Kent was a delegate to the convention.  He said that Root had misunderstood
the case (as Kevin has).  "The court had not adjudged Christianity to be
established by law.  Rather it had held that to revile the author of
Christianity in a blasphemous manner with malicious intent was an indictable
offense against public morals and decency."  (Levy, pp. 404-405).
Christianity was NOT established, Kent said.  He said only that the act of
blasphemy
outraged public decorum and offended public taste.  There was, in other
words, no religious basis to the crime (amazing, ain't it?).

Then Justice Kent voted in favor of Root's motion!

The issue remained controversial at the convention, and later debates left
the issue a bit more muddied -- but with a consensus that included Rufus
King, one of the "framers" of the U.S. Constitution, and future president
Martin Van Buren saying that the crime was a crime if it offended people, and
Christians could be offended -- leaving open the idea that blasphemy in New
York had been reduced from an abomination to God to a level of offensive
profanity.  It also left open the point on which religions could be
blasphemed.

Interestingly, in one exchange with Rufus King, Kent argued that "Anyone
might attack Christianity without blaspheming, if he did so in a decent
manner."  Ruggles' offense had been that he said Mary was a whore, apparently
-- an attack in an indecent manner.

However, also in 1821, Judge William Jay of the Westchester County court
talked about the meaning of the state's constitution, in instructions to a
grand jury.  Levy describes it:  "The guarantee [of religious freedom and
freedom of speech], he declared, extended equally to religious and political
topics.  Accordingly, 'infidels' as well as Christians had an 'equal and
undoubted right to publish the sentiments, and to endeavor to make converts
to
them.'"

Kent didn't ever get to a First Amendment argument, according to Kent.  Kent
voted to abolish Kevin's interpretation of Kent's decision in Ruggles.  New
York abandoned the Ruggles decision by 1821, in other decisions, and in
constitutional law.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:05 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205090500.EAA02406@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The Holy Trinity Court noted that federal courts in the 19th century did
not often rule on religion. First, because law had not been federalized as it
has been in the secular 20th century. Second, because the issue was well
understood, and with the exception of a few cranks like the blasphemy case
above, and the rantings of a few secularists like "Col." Ingersoll, everyone
understood America to be a Christian nation.<<

The Holy Trinity decision was another anomaly, and as I noted before, hardly
as Kevin has represented it.

To the extent the Court said 19th century courts did not deal with the issue,
they were largely in error.  New York had at least two other prosecutions for
blasphemy after Ruggles -- in both cases the defendants were acquitted,
though the alleged statements were at least as inflammatory as Ruggles' had
been.  Justice Brewer cited the Pennsylvania case of *Updegraph*, though
failing to note that everything in Updegraph was obiter dicta since the
Pennsylvania court REVERSED the conviction for blasphemy because the
indictment was faulty.  Moreover, Judge Duncan watered down the "Biblical
law" notion by declaring that, though blasphemy against Christianity could be
punished (this is obiter dicta, remember, not a holding), "only the malicious
reviler" could be punished.  Jews and Unitarians were fully protected under
the state law -- blasphemy only applied if there were a genuine threat to
"corrupt morals and society."

Delaware's court dealt with blasphemy, too -- and relying on Updegraph and
Ruggles, said it was a crime against public order (not religion).  Judge
Clayton ruled in the 1836 case of Chandler that blasphemy against
Christianity was a prosecutable offense -- but so would be blasphemy against
Judaism or Islam if the majority of the audience were members of those
faiths.  Sort of a "Jewish/Christian/Moslem" nation argument.

In any case, there were a number of other American cases prior to Holy
Trinity in 1892, and a few after.  A good reading of them shows a growing
understanding of the importance of freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
and the Constitutional guarantees of both.  By 1928, when the head of the
American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was jailed in Little
Rock, Arkansas, for agitating against creationism statutes, even the local
Southern
Baptists complained that such jailings violated the U.S. Constitution.

Public opinion has better understood the Constitution than the courts,
apparently.  And it all contributes to the growing trend to religious
freedom.

Ed




Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:08 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205090800.EAA02491@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Read Blackstone. All of our rights and due process protections come from
the Bible.<<

Read Coke.  Read Jefferson.  Blackstone had the bestseller, but he was wrong
in this argument.  Selling books is no measure of veracity, we know.

Blackstone's summaries are notoriously inaccurate.  This is another case of
such inaccuracy.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:17 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205091701.EAA02725@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The Constitution is not clear. Statutes were self-consciously drafted by
following the Bible, and many codes had the Biblical references annotated in
the margins. This was the clear pattern in New England, and throughout the
colonies.<<

Annotations are not the law.  Yes, some states did indeed refer to the Bible.
No, that does not make the Bible part of U.S. law, especially federal law.
They also refer to newspapers, poems, books and "common sense."  What is the
law is what the statute says.  Annotated codes are common, especially for big
states like Texas and California.  The authors and compilers strive for
accuracy.  But in the end the laws are the law, not the annotations. 
You're probably one of those guys who thinks Bishop James Ussher's time table
is a part of the Bible, too.  Sheesh!

>>NOTHING in the Constitution overturns Blackstone and the whole common law
tradition of turning to the Bible for civil and criminal law.<<

I've noted before that much in the Constitution and the states overturns
Blackstone, and we've discussed the purposeful gutting of common law
provision on heresy and blasphemy in Virginia.  Many of our more common
crimes today have absolutely no basis in Christianity, particularly crimes
like drug abuse.  These criminal statutes are but a very small part of the
organic laws of the U.S. and the states, however, and even were they
completely based in
the Bible (they aren't) it would still be inaccurate to say even half our
laws are Biblically based.  U.S. laws on labor, workman's compensation,
pensions, land, property, water rights, maritime navigation, maritime
employment, consumer safety, social welfare and most other topics have little
correlation to the Bible, let alone a base there.

Unless, of course, you're arguing that Sen. Jennings Randolph was really one
of the original 12 disciples, and his fervent advocacy of interstate highways
reflected his dedication to Jesus' admonition that the word be spread . . .
;-)

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:21 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205092101.EAA04315@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The Thanksgiving proclamations are evidence that this nation turned to the
Bible for Authority.<<

You can find no argument in the Constitution, none in the federal laws, none
in the court decisions, so now you turn to non-binding presidential
proclamations to support your argument for Biblical law?  It is indicative of
the dearth of support for your arguments that you turn to presidential
proclamations.  This is simply fatuous.

We also get an annual proclamation on National Pickle Month.  Does this make
us a pickle nation, too?

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:23 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205092301.EAA02904@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>It simply cannot be the case that all of the many presidents who made
proclamations similar to Lincoln's either didn't understand basic American
government or deliberately violated the Constitution. It cannot be the case
that only Jefferson and (the later) Madison understood the Constitution.<<

They fully understood the Constitution.  They understood that these
non-binding resolutions do not make law.  They understood that they could
disagree with Jefferson.

And they entertained no delusions that by issuing a proclamation declaring a
holiday to eat turkey they were overturning the First Amendment.

No one is arguing that these proclamations violate the Constitution.  You are
arguing that they gut the First Amendment.  That's silly.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:31 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205093101.EAA03122@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:  >>
If you're going to have an Empire, the leaders are obligated to follow
Biblical Law. Doing so will, of course, put most Empires out of business.<<

We don't plan to have an empire.  

We shouldn't plan to put anyone else out of business.

There is no requirement to follow Biblical law for good government, and as
you have argued so well from Madison's *Memorial and Remonstrance*, we should
be wary of anyon who says following Biblical law will make good government --
since it has never been achieved in the history of Christianity.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:36 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205093601.EAA04716@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The Christian common law tolerates a wide variety of religious expressions
WITHIN CHRISTIANITY.<<

Not so.  Baptists were hanged.  Alleged witches were pressed to death.
Quakers and Mennonites and others who argued for peace were whipped, shot,
hanged, and persecuted in a number of other ways.  Mormons were hunted for
bounty.  All in the U.S. or its predecessor colonies.  

It was the abuse of Baptists and Presbyterians at common law that first
awakened the conscience of the young James Madison to the sins of religious
intolerance.

In any case, the common law of the U.S. tolerates a wide variety of religious
views outside of Christianity, as well as it tolerates Christianity.  And
more important, the First Amendment guarantees that the government has no
right to pry into your religious beliefs, regardless what they are.  Your
conscience and its freedom were "endowed by their creator," according to the
Declaration of Independence -- and no government can claim a right to it. 
Biblical law does not offer enough protection for Christians, so we hold to a
higher standard in this country -- protecting all beliefs.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:39 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205093901.EAA03305@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Even Jefferson did not disagree with this, and
Madison spoke of "false religions" and nations that lived "in darkness." The
Thanksgiving proclamations prove this WAS a Christian nation.<<

You mischaracterize Jefferson, Madison, and religious freedom in the U.S.

In his autobiography Jefferson recounted the
passage of the law he proposed to secure religious freedom in Virginia, the
Statute for Religious Freedom:  "Where the preamble declares, that coercion
is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment
was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it 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 the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of
every denomination."

[See "Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,"( Modern Library, p.
46)]


Unless your definition of "Christian" includes "the Jew, the Gentile, the
Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the infidel of every
denomination," the U.S. is NOT a "christian nation."

Ed



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:43 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205094301.EAA04883@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>You missed the point entirely. Madison argued for his bill based on a
non-secular purpose, as well as the fact that it would advance Christianity.
He appealed for passage of the law based on non-secular grounds, because this
was a Christian nation. <<

The *Memorial and Remonstrance* was not a brief on behalf of a bill Madison
proposed.  It was a petition opposed to the establishment of the church in
Virginia.  Madison argued that NOT establishing the church would advance
Christianity better than advancing it would.  

Your claim that his arguments counter the Lemon test are still specious.

The bill that WAS passed as a result of the debates meets all three prongs of
the Lemon test.  In fact, it IS the Lemon test.

Ed



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:46 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205094601.EAA03488@ladder02.news.aol.com>

I said,
earlier:  >Every culture on earth has a compunction against
>murder, and philosophers agree that no religious view is necessary to
justify
>such laws.  

Kevin responded:  >>Only secular philosophers agree to this. I have cited so
many Founders and jurists such as Blackstone to the contrary that it's
ridiculous to cite them again. The Founders of this country believed that
Christianity was necessary for the prosperity of our government.<<

Kevin, you cannot name one religion anywhere on Earth that favors murder.
There is not one.

For that matter, there is no religion which favors theft.

Franklin, Washington, and others argued that good morality was necessary for
progress -- but they did not regard Christianity as the fount of all
morality, nor necessary as a source.  Washington was particularly enamored of
Cincinnatus, the Roman general -- and modeled his life after that model.  

Ed




Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:50 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205095001.EAA05060@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>No, if a religion says sacrifice or holy war is an obligation of all its
followers, then an anti-sacrifice law impinges on the religious free exercise
of the followers. CLEARLY, Ed, the anti-polygamy laws infringed the "free
exercise of [Mormon] religion."<<

No religion condones murder or theft.  Holy war?  Please cite scripture, and
if it is not Christian scripture, please distinguish between that religions
call for "holy war" and the Pope's call for the crusades.  

Ed



["Crusade  -- n.  The Christian word for 'Jihad.'"  The New Devil's
Dictionary, with apologies to Ambrose Bierce, wherever he may
be]



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:53 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205095301.EAA03658@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
The next sentence reads,

      do by the presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God 
      and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a 
      civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and 
      Furtherance of other Ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, 
      constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, 
      constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most 
      [suitable] and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto 
      which we promise all due submission and obedience."

In other words, the laws were the means to the end of glorifying God.<<<<

I'm glad you typed that so I didn't have to.

Read this clause.  It is a contract between these people that they will obey
the laws these people make.  It was made necessary partly because they did
not share a religion, and could not therefore agree to abide by a particular
set of "Biblical laws."  That they invoked God to smile on their contract is
nice -- but it does not incorporate the Bible in any operative fashion.

Ed



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 04:57 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205095701.EAA05279@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin rebuts
his argument, probably unintentionally.  Kevin cites colonial charters:
>>
     MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER, 1629: "Our said People. . . may be 
      soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life 
      and orderlie Conversacon maie wynn and incite the Natives of [that] 
      Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the onlie true God and 
      Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which in our Royall 
      Intencon . . . is the principall Ende of this Plantacon."

      NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of Mass., 
      Conn., New Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into these parts 
      of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance 
      the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ."

      NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNMENT, 1639: "Considering with ourselves 
      the holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we should not live 
      without wholesome Lawes and Civil Government among us of which we 
      are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the Sight of 
      God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such 
      Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the 
      Will of God."

      NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they 
      were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in
this
      jurisdiction."

WITHIN CHRISTIANITY, the Constitution recognizes religious freedom.<<

Kevin, obviously these people felt compelled to mention their devotion to God
and reliance on the Bible, when appropriate.  These charters tell us a lot.

They tell us that, had the colonists intended to make the U.S. Constitution
"as they were delivered by Moses," they would have said so.  Since they did
NOT say so, and in fact said something quite different, it is simply wrong to
impute words they did not write, and motives they did not voice.

The Constitution does not include these passages you cite.  That is
purposeful.  It was not intended to, nor does it now, incorporate those
views.

Ed





Subject: Re: By what authority?
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:02 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205100201.FAA03905@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>If you are right then I will work to overthrow the Constitution.<<

I'm right.  So long as you advocate overthrow by peaceful means, you're fine.
The Constitution guarantees your right to do so.

Kevin said:  >>You are wrong, of course, and all of the Founders (except the
later Madison, perhaps) would deny that the authority for government came
from the people acting autonomously and rebelliously against God. As Lincoln
put it, any nation that acts outside the authority of God is doomed.<<

The founders wrote it out in the Preamble, clear as a bell.  What possible
reason would you have for opposing the Preamble to the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."

If God has influence in the Constitution, it is because God has influence
with the people.  The people of the United States are the source of the
authority for our government.

Have you forgotten that war called the American Revolution? 

Ed




Subject: Re: No Biblical govts
pre-1789
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:04 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205100401.FAA05449@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>This is an incredible, bizarre, unbelievable statement. Calvinism, the most
rigorously Biblical brand of Christianity, is in fact a species of
Humanism?!?!? Unbelievable.<<

If you say so.  Read it and weep.  

Or read it and reap.  There are good points to Calvinism, and we borrowed 'em
for our government.

Ed



Subject: Re: No Biblical govts
pre-1789
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:06 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205100601.FAA04007@ladder02.news.aol.com>

I said: >Penn
lost his grant for a time when James II fell, and by the
>time he regained it in 1694,  the Pennsylvania Assembly was beyond his
>control.  Though he was nominally the sovereign, he was forced to accept the
>growing power of self-government, and in 1701, the "Charter of Liberties,"
>which gave all real power to the legislature.  Not God, not the Bible -- the
>legislature.

Kevin responded:  >>But the legislature was required, and required itself, to
legislate in accord with Biblical law.<<

Perhaps you could provide some source for your argument?  The Charter of
Liberties does not say the legislature must follow Biblical law.

Ed




Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:10 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205101001.FAA05606@ladder01.news.aol.com>

I said:
>Usually they urge the
>people to give thanks.  At no time does any president order the slaughter
and
>sacrifice of a calf, or anything else.  

Kevin responded:  >>C'mon Ed. Name one member of the Religious Right who
believes the government should require animal sacrifices. Your posts are more
and more full of straw men.<<

Well let's get down to brass tacks, then.  Just what IS the religious duty of
the government?  I said no animal sacrifices are required, or anything else.
You dispute this, but don't tell us what IS required.  List the religious
duties of the government, please.

And while you're at it, tell us how that list doesn't make the government in
the role of Saul, making an unholy mixture of religion and government.  Saul
didn't wait for Samuel, and God was wroth.  Now you want to make Saul's
policies those of the U.S.?

But be sure you list the religious duties of the government.

ED



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205101300.FAA04186@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205084801.DAA03333@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>I cited James Kent's opinion in the blasphemy case. The
>defendant argued that the First Amendment gave him the right to blaspheme.
>Kent rightly concluded that Biblical Law takes precedent over, indeed
>undergirds, the First Amendment.<<

>First you misstate the importance of
>People v. Ruggles, and now you grossly overstate the effect of the
>case.

>Leonard Levy, the First Amendment scholar,  gives the case a good
>treatment in *Blasphemy* (University of North Carolina Press, 1993).  He
>notes that for the first case on blasphemy, it's difficult to study because
>we have almost no real record of it.  No one even knows Ruggles' first name.
>Levy notes that Chief Justice James Kent's opinion turned solely on whether
>blasphemy could be an offense without a specific statute criminalizing it.
>Kent, ever the conservative, stuck to English common law, which had been
>adopted into the New York constitution, relying in part on Taylor's case of
>1676.  Blasphemy was a crime to the extent of disorderly conduct.  He said
>blaspheming Christianity was a crime because most New Yorkers were
Christian.

A lot of stuff here with no discernable force or relevance, except the last
line. This is not a "secular purpose." It "advances religion." It is proof
positive that one of the greatest constitutional scholars in our history was
not laboring under the current doctrine of "separation." Proof postive.

>Other state courts ruled exactly the opposite, including Ohio's, on the
basis
>that common law did NOT make any religious law the part of any law of
>any state.  So at best for your side, Kevin, the case is debatable.

I'll read the case if you'll give the cite.

>In any
>case, Ruggles is an anomoly.  There was never another conviction of
blasphemy
>in the state.

That's what convictions under the penal code are designed to do: DETER.

>And, in 1821, at the convention to frame a new constitution, a
>motion was made by Erastus Root for a religious freedom clause including the
>phrase, "judiciary shall not declare any particular religion to be the law
of
>the land.  Root slammed the Ruggles decision as making the sheriff of New
>York City a blasphemer, as he was a Jew.

>Kent was a delegate to the
>convention.  He said that Root had misunderstood the case (as Kevin has).

He DID misunderstand the case. I don't think I do. I would never say that a
Jew was a blasphemer solely on the basis of his being a Jew. I am not saying
tht Kent said that either. Nor do Reconstructionists say that.

>"The court had not adjudged Christianity to be established by law.  Rather
it
>had held that to revile the author of Christianity in a blasphemous manner
>with malicious intent was an indictable offense against public morals and
>decency."  (Levy, pp. 404-405).  Christianity was NOT established, Kent
said.
>He said only that the act of blasphemy outraged public decorum and offended
>public taste.  There was, in other words, no religious basis to the crime
>(amazing, ain't it?).

Amazing that you and Levy still believe that early America was burdened by
the ACLU's vision of the First Amendment. Kent's decision would be
unconstitutional by today's standards. It is not "netural." It is not
"secular." Here it is again:

      Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, 
      it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against 
      religion and morality which have no reference to any such 
      establishment . . . .  This [constitutional] declaration (noble and 
      magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to 
      withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of 
      moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of 
      the law. . . .  To construe it [the constitution] as breaking down 
      the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious 
      attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion 
      of its meaning.

This decision -- even if it's more secular than I might like -- is still
totally "unconstitutional" under current Sup.Ct./ACLU standards. It "favors
religion" and might make atheists feel "left out" (their words, not mine: see
County  of  Allegheny v. ACLU 492 US 573, 674, 106 L Ed 2d 472, 547 (Justice
Kennedy, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Scalia join,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.) Ibid., 492
US 573, 670, 106 L Ed 2d 472, 545, 109 S Ct 3086 (1989) (Justice O'Connor,
with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Stevens join as to Part II, concurring
in part and concurring in the judgment.)("outsiders").) The Ruggles case --
and even all the discussion about it in Levy -- proves that the current
doctrine did not exist then.

>Then Justice Kent voted in favor of Root's
>motion!

It didn't pass, did it.

>The issue remained controversial at the convention, and later
>debates left the issue a bit more muddied -- but with a consensus that
>included Rufus King, one of the "framers" of the U.S. Constitution, and
>future president Martin Van Buren saying that the crime was a crime if it
>offended people, and Christians could be offended -- leaving open the idea
>that blasphemy in New York had been reduced from an abomination to God to a
>level of offensive profanity.  It also left open the point on which
religions
>could be blasphemed.

The only thing this proves is that the Constitution allows the freedom to
move in what I would call (because I'm hard-nosed) a secular direction. I
think that's a mistake; I'm sure you're happy about it. But this is a far cry
from proving that the Constitution REQUIRES a movement in a secular
direction. All the parties Levy describes believed that some level of
deference was constitutional, whereas the modern Court defines the 1st
Amendmnt "no law
*respecting* religion" AS deference. That's not what the Constitution is
saying. It's an unjustified 180° shift.

Nevertheless, the Holy Trinity Court majority cited the enduring effect of
Ruggles in 1892.

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




Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:13 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205101300.FAA05671@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205082000.DAA02351@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>Your thinking is totally backwards. Biblical Law does not
have
>to "square with the First Amendment," the First Amendment was demanded by
the
>states to guarantee that the feds didn't interfere with their implementation
>of Biblical Law.<<

>This view is far enough afield of reality that I'd like
>to know your sources!

We've gone over this already. The First Amendment does not restrict the
states from outlawing polygamy or other practices of paganism. The Baptists
demanded the First Amendment so that the U.S. would not be declared an
Episcopalian nation. Remember Jefferson's letter to the Baptists?

>The First Amendment was one of those rights to the
>people requested by several states during the ratification process.  The
>history is well known, and the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson
>is widely available.  

We've gone over this, too. Madison and Jefferson's influence on the First
Amendment is vastly overstated by secular historiographers. Virginia was the
most establishmentarian state of them all, and most other states had already
abolished state-mandated tithes before Madison did in VA.

>Madison thought it unnecessary to guarantee the right
>of every individual to free thought, since every state already had such a
>guarantee and disestablishment was proceeding apace.  Jefferson disagreed,
so
>did several of the state conventions.  Chastened at his oversight, and
>simultaneously heartened that all Americans had clung so fast to the
>religious freedoms he'd passed into law in Virginia, Madison was the chief
>sponsor of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.  

We've gone over this: Madison's version, though defeated, called expressly
for a prohibition against "a national religion." "Americans clung to HIS
reforms?!?" He was simply following the lead of others.

>Congress
>beat back more than one attempt to make the amendment only keep the feds out
>of state church doings -- indicating, once again, that the intent of the
>people was to keep all government out of all of their church dealings, and
to
>keep the state and the church forever separate.

We've gone over this. Nobody is arguing for establishing a specific church.

>Jefferson is quite clear in
>his autobiography about "Biblical law" as it existed in Virginia.  He and
>George Mason, and Madison, undertook the assignment from the legislature to
>bring Virginia's laws into the 18th Century.  They disestablished the church
>and disposed of church lands.  

Irrelevant.

>They abolished the possibility of prosecutions
>for heresy and blasphemy by the unique device of codifying the laws,
removing
>jurisdiction from common law (which gave
local clergy the right to define
>such crimes and initiate prosecution).  They wrote religious freedom into
the
>state constitution (the Virginia Bill of Rights, for which Mason is known);
>and then finally the secured total freedom of conscience with the Statute
for
>Religious Freedom.  Except for the latter, which was not made law until
1786,
>seven years after its proposal, these actions were accomplished by the end
of
>1777.

Yawn.

Since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat the dissent in Wallace v Jaffree
(1984)

       "[T]he Court's opinion in Everson -- while correct in bracketing 
       Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home 
       State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious 
       Liberty -- is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried 
       these views onto the floor of the United States House of 
       Representatives when he proposed the language which would 
       ultimately become the Bill of Rights. The repetition of this error in 
       the Court's opinion in [McCollum] and [Engel] does not make it 
       any sounder historically. Finally, in [Abington], the Court made 
       the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and 
       Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated 
       not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most 
       of our States." On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement 
       is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history. And its repetition
in 
       varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more 
       authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; *stare decisis* may 
       bind courts as to matter of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters

       of history."

>There is so little "Biblical law" in most state constitutions I can
>only assume you've never read one, Kevin.  The federal constitution doesn't
>touch on it at all.

I've got a few on my hard drive. Which would you like? I've already cited
enough of them to show that the First Amendment was not understood by any of
them to require the separation of Christianity from the law. I've cited
several state constitutions which follow the Northwest Ordinance's
requirement that "religion" be taught in the schools, which utterly destroys
the modern understanding of "separation" at perhaps its most controversial
point.

And looking for "Biblical Law" in a federal constitution shows an abysmal
ignorance of the purpose of a constitution. Go to the codes and official acts
of the Legislature and you'll find plenty of evidence that there was no
"separation" of Christianity and the government. An example: Washington's
first official act -- his Inaugural Address to a joint session of Congress:

       [I]t 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. . . .   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. 
       Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an 
       independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some 
       token of providential agency. . . .  [W]e ought to be no less 
       persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be 
       expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order 
       and right which Heaven itself has ordained.

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




Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:14 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205101401.FAA04202@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>You believe the First Amendment forbids the government from obeying God,
which was never intended by its ratifiers. <<

No.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from expounding religious
views.  That's a right of a citizen; the government is not a citizen.

>>The prayers struck down by the Supreme Court were completely
non-sectarisn.<<

Non-sectarian was not the issue.  The First Amendment says the government may
not compel any citizen to any religious view.  In Engel v. Vitale, the Court
confirmed that even school children have religious rights.  The government --
whether schoolboard or state or federal -- may not horsewhip children to
pray.  The horsewhip can't be used even for non-sectarian prayers.

Coercion was the issue.  The government may not coerce citizens on religion.

Ed



Subject: First Amendment
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:20 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205102001.FAA05849@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The Government is both bound to obey God and the First Amendment does not
prohibit this. The Amendment prohibits distinguishing between Baptists and
Methodists, but does not prohibit the distinction between God and Moloch.<<

The government is not bound to pay any respect to any God by any organic act
of the United States and its people.  The New Haven Colony charter does not
bind us today, nor did it ever bind anyone outside of that colony -- IF it
bound the government there to pay respects.

The First Amendment is quite clear, I think:  "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;  . . ."

Is Moloch considered a god?  Then Moloch's founders are a religion?  Then the
Congress may not make a law respecting Moloch.  Nor may the Congress make a
law respecing Jehovah.

Where else would the government get the authority to respect Jehovah?  From
the enumerated powers.

If you believe that the U.S is bound to respect any god, or God, please
specify which clause of the Constitution enumerates this power -- and, while
you're at it, tell us how that would possible square with the First
Amendment.

There is no other way the government could get such a power, under the
charter We the People give it.

Ed



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact --
oaths
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:23 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205102301.FAA04403@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>To sign an agreement under oath is to put the entire venture under the
authority of God.<<

Not exactly.  The oath means that you pledge to the other party that you will
carry out your part of the bargain, and you pledge so before God.  It does
not incorporate any part of Biblical law into the bargain.

The execution of that agreement alone is "under the authority" of God.  That
is all.  Nothing else outside the four corners of that document may be
imputed, under the parol evidence rule, or by any other operation of law.

Ed



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:26 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205102601.FAA05948@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The statute made absolutely no reference to Genesis or the Bible. Numerous
catastrophists exist independent of Genesis, such as Velikovsky. Why is it
only the cult of Darwin gets to be taught?<<

Because only Darwin has the support of all the sciences and is not religion.


Neither Arkansas' nor Louisiana's statutes would have allowed teaching
Velikovsky.

The creationist advocates and sponsors of the law in the Arkansas case
(McLean vs. Arkansas, 1982) confessed under oath, in testimony, that Genesis
was the sole basis for creationism.  They were unable to produce any other
basis for it, either.

Who are you gonna believe, if you don't believe the sponsors of the bill,
under oath?

Ed



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:32 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205103201.FAA04625@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>The First Amendment does not prohibit the teaching that Darwin is not fact.
ALl thestatute mandated was the teaching of those scientific facts which are
uncomfortable for Darwinists.<<

The statutes usually say that when Darwin is taught, creationism must be
taught.  Or they say that, "in fairness," alternative theories of the rise of
diversity of life must be taught alongside evolution.

The problem is that we're talking science classes.  There is not scientific
basis for any "alternative" theory.  Nor, under the Arkansas statute, could
you teach the Navajo "theory."  

Creation science is similar to Dorothy Parker's line about Oakland:  There is
no science there.  

The First Amendment prohibits teaching religion under government aegis.
Creationism was found to be religious dogma.

In the Arkansas case the sponsors of the bill argued that creationism was
suppressed from scientific journals, and that creation science research
submitted to the journals for publication never saw the light of day.  Judge
Overton was sympathetic to the argument, and invited the creationists to
submit to the court any articles showing the scientific basis of  creationism
which had been submitted to any scientific journal and not published.  By
doing
so, the creationists would establish the scientific basis -- although
controversial -- and be able to get creationism taught in the public schools.

Guess how many scientific articles the creationists were able to find that
were submitted to the court.

Zero.

Ed



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:38 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205103801.FAA06217@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Secular Humanism is a religion, according to the Supreme Court. <<

Not only is this not a ruling or holding of the Supreme Court, it is not even
obiter dicta -- it is only a footnote to obiter dicta!  And, at that, it says
that "secular humanism' might be considered a religion.  

Secular humanism has no dogma, I guess, so anything that is not religious is
secular humanism?  All victims of algebra will be pleased to hear of your
interpretation.

Evolution is not religion.  It is science.  It goes where the data take it.
It has no preconceived notions about what the facts ought to be.  It has not
philosophy that is inherently religious.

>>Read Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson on Darwin. You write with such a
dogmatic tone. Not one of the Founders would have objected to the Lousiana
statute.<<

Jefferson would have found the Louisiana statute particularly odious, I
believe.  It would prohibit the teaching of Jefferson's musings about natural
origins of Virginia, and it would disallow the use of his favorite mastodon
bones as science class displays.

Philip Johnson is a professor of criminal law, and his opinions on evolution
are, well, those of a criminal law professor.  Johnson believes that all
science is atheism.  He's a nut.

And he ignores the body of evidence for evolution.  Not exactly my idea of a
judicious fellow.

Ed



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:41 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205104101.FAA04813@ladder02.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>Madison said the civil magistrate is not a reliable judge of religion,
didn't he? Yet now you're perfectly comfortable with the feds telling my
little community what we can teach our kids. This is not only bad First
Amendment, it's bad federalism to boot.<<

The First Amendment says the government may not teach religion.  All you have
to do to get creationism in the schools is do some research that supports it
and get it published in the science journals.

Instead, creationists take the route of tyranny, doing as the Soviets did
with their biology heresies, and pass laws requiring their odd views be
taught.

Creationism is a small cult, taught by few churches.  It has no place in the
science curriculum.  In deference to this cult, however, we do not teach the
scientific case against creationism.  Perhaps we should.

Ed



Subject: Re: Hey You Two
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:42 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205104201.FAA06309@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Rachel asks:
>>Is it just me, or has this board turned into a shouting match between two
people?!?!?<<

Didn't think I was shouting.

I'll lay off for a while and let others refute Kevin's many heresies.

Apologies.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA06469@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205101001.FAA05606@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Well let's get down to brass tacks, then.  Just what IS the religious duty
of
>the government?  I said no animal sacrifices are required, or anything else.
>You dispute this, but don't tell us what IS required.  List the religious
>duties of the government, please.

>And while you're at it, tell us how that
>list doesn't make the government in the role of Saul, making an unholy
>mixture of religion and government.  Saul didn't wait for Samuel, and God
was
>wroth.  Now you want to make Saul's policies those of the U.S.?

But be sure
>you list the religious duties of the government.


I am an anarchist. In my view, all politicians have a religious duty to
resign immediately.

But the point is not, what do *I* think the government's duties are, the
point is that politicians back then believed that they had religious duties,
and they did not believe that the First Amendment stripped them of either the
right or the duty to obey God.

The current doctrine of separation removes religion from government and
thereby opens the floodgates of fascism. The state sees itself as god. It has
no higher Authority to which it must answer. The "separation" of government
from religion has meant a bloodbath.  See the gruesome statistics at

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/rummel.htm

While you worry about state-mandated tithes, and secure the right of one
beligerant atheist against 29 other students who want to pray, secular
governments commit genocide.

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA04984@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205093901.EAA03305@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>Even Jefferson did not disagree with this, and Madison spoke
>of "false religions" and nations that lived "in darkness." The Thanksgiving
>proclamations prove this WAS a Christian nation.<<

>You mischaracterize
>Jefferson, Madison, and religious freedom in the U.S.

You may be right: I may mischaracterize Jeff and Mad, but not the U.S., not
Washington, not Lincoln. Their words are clear.

>In his autobiography
>Jefferson recounted the passage of the law he proposed to secure religious
>freedom in Virginia, the Statute for Religious Freedom:  "Where the preamble
>declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of
>our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus
>Christ," so that it 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 the Mahometan, the
>Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination."

Maybe I need sleep, but this is nowhere near as clear as Lincoln. 
Coercion against or toward what? Eliminate all coercion and you eliminate the
penal code altogether. All law is coercion. The question is, are we going to
coerce "thugs from India," and polygamists from Utah, or are we going to keep
Lincoln from declaring that government has duties to God?

>Unless your
>definition of "Christian" includes "the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and
>the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the infidel of every denomination," the U.S.
>is NOT a "christian nation."

Jefferson vs. Holy Trinity Court. Jefferson is opinion. The Court is good
history.
Jefferson's wish/opinion that the 1st Amendmnt move the nation in a secular
direction was not the majority opinion in his day.

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






Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA06473@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205091701.EAA02725@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>The Constitution is not clear. Statutes were self-consciously
>drafted by following the Bible, and many codes had the Biblical references
>annotated in the margins. This was the clear pattern in New England, and
>throughout the colonies.<<

>Annotations are not the law.  Yes, some states
>did indeed refer to the Bible.  No, that does not make the Bible part of
U.S.
>law, especially federal law.  

The law says "Thou shalt not kill." In the margin is found "Ex 20." The
authority for law in this country was the Bible. You lose.

And putting "especially federal law" displays a contempt for the right of the
States that was behind the Bill of Rights. There wasn't supposed to be the
huge body of federal law that exists today.


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




Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA04993@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205090800.EAA02491@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>Read Blackstone. All of our rights and due process
protections
>come from the Bible.<<

Read Coke.  Read Jefferson.  Blackstone had the
>bestseller, but he was wrong in this argument.  Selling books is no measure
>of veracity, we know.

Blackstone's summaries are notoriously inaccurate. 

Also notoriously influential. As Jefferson admitted. Influence is how we
determine "original intent."

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA06476@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205090500.EAA02406@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Public opinion has better understood the Constitution than the courts,
>apparently.  And it all contributes to the growing trend to religious
>freedom.

So you think America is a wiser nation if more people go around calling Mary
a "whore"? You think blasphemy speaks highly of a person's maturity? And if
so, do you really think a majority of the Founding Fathers would agree with
you?

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



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 05:50 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205105000.FAA04998@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205095001.EAA05060@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>No, if a religion says sacrifice or holy war is an obligation
>of all its followers, then an anti-sacrifice law impinges on the religious
>free exercise of the followers. CLEARLY, Ed, the anti-polygamy laws
infringed
>the "free exercise of [Mormon] religion."<<

>No religion condones murder or
>theft.

You're mistaken. I've cited cannibals, and at least one witch on this board
tried to distinguish her sect from these others. I mentioned Kali followers
and human sacrifices in Latin America.

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



Subject: Re: Madison on
Separation
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 06:00 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971205110000.GAA06689@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205094301.EAA04883@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>The bill that WAS passed as a result of the debates meets all three prongs
of
>the Lemon test.  In fact, it IS the Lemon test.

This is degenerating into simple "yes it is," "no it isn't."
Deal with my argument. Analyze it. Humor me.
The creationist statute -- wholly devoid of any reference to religion or God
-- was thrown out because one or more of its drafters secretly hoped to
benefit Christianity. Madison, in his M&R explicitly -- for all the world to
see -- says his bill would benefit Christianity. If he was lying, he's a
hypocrite. If sincere, then he violated the Lemon test by the current Court's
standards. Madison clearly lacked a wholly "secular purpose," and he says
explicitly that his bill will promote Christianity. That's two of the three
prongs violated!

Now, don't just say "yes it is," explain to me how the M&R does not violate
the Lemon Test. Show me that Madison felt it was necessary never to promote
Christianity through law. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that the
Lemon test does not reflect the original intent of the Founders.


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



Subject: Bible-based law
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 10:39 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205153901.KAA18498@ladder02.news.aol.com>

I know, I said
I'd sit on my hands for a couple of days.  But  . . . .

I said earlier:  >>>Annotations are not the law.  Yes, some states
>did indeed refer to the Bible.  No, that does not make the Bible part of
U.S.
>law, especially federal law.  

Kevin said:  >>The law says "Thou shalt not kill." In the margin is found "Ex
20." The authority for law in this country was the Bible. You lose.

And putting "especially federal law" displays a contempt for the right of the
States that was behind the Bill of Rights. There wasn't supposed to be the
huge body of federal law that exists today.<<

Either way I win.  The assumption of the federal Constitution is that most
criminal laws would be made by the states.  Murder is not condemned in the
Constitution.  Adultery is not mentioned.  Theft gets no code to work with.  

When I said "especially federal law I showed no contempt for the states -- I
merely note carefully the relationship that existed -- which is, that
criminal laws of the nature you discuss were thought to be the jurisdiction
first of the states.  Still true.

But you keep missing the main point.  The Constitution is a creation of
non-Biblical ideas.  There's a strong hint of Calvinism, but nothing based on
the Bible (even churches tread non-Biblical ground in governance).  Our
government is based on a lot of stuff -- Roman history, Greek history,
English history, colonial experience, new ideas.  Among all those influences,
Christianity is far from the major one.  The Bible itself makes no billed
appearances, and the cameos are suspect.  

What are the major tenets of Biblical law?  If you take the Ten Commandments,
you'll find they are missing from the Constitution.  If you take the two
great commandments of Jesus, you'll find they are missing from the
Constitution.  If you look at Mosaic law, from which many of us Christians
believe Jesus freed us, you'll find only the fact that the laws are codified,
with nothing of the substance of the Old Law surviving.

Where is the Biblical influence?

If you do a careful historical study, with some of the best historians you
can muster, you might come up with a list of 25 or 30 people who represent
potent influences on U.S. law.  In fact, if you venture into the chamber of
the House of Representatives, you'll see that the House commissioned just
such a study (circa 1935), and the results are commemorated in bas relief
around the chamber.  Sure enough, there's a portrayal of Moses the Lawgiver,
commemorated for having started the practice of writing down laws.  But he is
only one among many.  There are also Jews, Moslems, Deists, Roman
polytheists, Hammurabi, and Mason and Jefferson.  No Jesus.  No God.

There IS influence of Christians.  There is NOT Biblical law, in the U.S.
Constitution.  The source of power is the people who consent to be governed.
You can look it up in any credible history book, or read the Preamble for
yourself.

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 10:49 EST
From: EDarr1776
Message-id: <19971205154901.KAA20753@ladder01.news.aol.com>

Kevin said:
>>So you think America is a wiser nation if more people go around calling
Mary a "whore"? You think blasphemy speaks highly of a person's maturity? And
if so, do you really think a majority of the Founding Fathers would agree
with you?<<

No, I find such behavior offensive.

But I weigh that against the rule of tyrants, and find that blasphemy and
sedition laws are the first things tyrants use to maintain unjust rule.  In
our history blasphemy is not the problem that injustice in the name of
blasphemy is.

I don't advocate blasphemy.  I do not advocate the government get into
enforcing laws against blasphemy, either.  Blasphemy itself is an abomination
to God, for the blasphemer.  Civil enforcement of blasphemy laws corrupts
governments to the core.  Give me good government, and let us do as Jefferson
said Jesus would have, which is use persuasion to the right to bring
blasphemers into voluntary compliance.

My God has a thick skin, though I suspect God keeps a careful account book .
. .

And, as I pointed out, the founders worked hard to get blasphemy out of the
hands of the clergy, to end prosecution and persecution of alleged
blasphemers and heretics -- they didn't like the enforcement of such laws,
found it un-Christian.  Jefferson wrote about it directly; Adams wrote about
it directly.  And Adams was the guy who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts!
We know from our brief flings at these laws that they don't work for justice.
It
helps to understand that the First Amendment holds both blasphemy and heresy
prosecutions repugnant.  

Madison went to great lengths to point out that diversity of opinion between
competing interests works to the advantage of truth and good government, and
religious virture.  That diversity of opinion is impossible to achieve with
laws against blasphemy, heresy and sedition.

Tradition holds that Jesus was tried for blasphemy.  With that as a capstone,
the history of blasphemy is that there may never have been a just prosecution
of such a law.  Did you like the outcome of that trial?

Ed



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God!
#1
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15197@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205101401.FAA04202@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Coercion was the issue.  The government may not coerce citizens on religion.

Except pagans, cannibals and polygamists who commit offenses "injurious to
the [Christian] public." Which shows that while the State was required to
stay out
of denominational, sectarian bickering, the State was not separated from
Christian legal principles.

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



Subject: Re: Give Thanks to God
for Separation #4
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16621@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205154901.KAA20753@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Tradition holds that Jesus was tried for blasphemy.  With that as a
capstone,
>the history of blasphemy is that there may never have been a just
prosecution
>of such a law.  Did you like the outcome of that trial?

Obviously the Pharisees mistinterpreted Biblical Law. I am not defending
misinterpretations. But there is a logic to a correctly interpreted blasphemy
law. If the entire legal structure is premised (as ours WAS) on Christian
morality, then an attack on Christianity is an attack on the entire social
structure. If Christianity is the basis for the morality undergirding law,
then blasphemy is an "anarchistic" and "seditious" act. It encourages people
to
murder and steal, because it undercuts the reason why people DON'T murder and
steal and thus destroys social order.

This is the logic behind blasphemy laws. If you believe in a State,
ultimately you will believe in blasphemy laws, because you cannot tolerate
someone who is destroying the god of society. Even Humanists have blasphemy
laws, as the execution of Socrates proves. I don't advocate criminalization
of anything, but this is a historical fact which shows that the contemporary
doctrine of ch/st separation was not that of the Founders.

When current humanists say they believe in "religious freedom" or "religious
neutrality," what they are really doing is covertly abandoning the old
religion and refusing to openly acknowledge the new religion.

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



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15219@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205095701.EAA05279@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>      NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they 
>      were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in
this
>      jurisdiction."

Kevin, obviously these people felt compelled to mention their
>devotion to God and reliance on the Bible, when appropriate.  These charters
>tell us a lot.

>They tell us that, had the colonists intended to make the
>U.S. Constitution "as they were delivered by Moses," they would have said
so.
>Since they did NOT say so, and in fact said something quite different, it is
>simply wrong to impute words they did not write, and motives they did not
>voice.

>The Constitution does not include these passages you cite.  That is
>purposeful.  It was not intended to, nor does it now, incorporate those
>views.

I grant your point; I do not support the Constitution for this very reason,
and 
many other Christians are equally unsupportive of the document. HOWEVER,
the Constitution does NOT EXCLUDE these points. It was ratified by colonists
who intended to continue to implement Biblical Law in the states.

Remember, the legal system of every state was explicitly predicated on
Christianity. What is needed for your view to be correct is an EXPLICIT
REPUDIATION of this connection. Jefferson and (the later) Madison may have
WANTED this, but they knew they could NEVER get it. **Disestablish
Christianity from the Legal System?!?**  NO WAY, Ed. This is not what America
was about in 1789. America was about no taxes for churches. The FEDERAL
constitution is
silent in order to allow the individual States freedom to legislate whatever
laws of Moses they wanted. 

But Christianity was still the law of the land. This is why they had, for
example, test oaths, requiring Christian belief before one could hold office,
but forbad "religious" tests which excluded members of certain *sects* or
*denominations* within Christianity.

Yes, I personally feel that the Constitution should have been more explicitly
Mosaic and Theocratic. I grant that there were secularizing influences at
work. But there were also stalwart theocrats as well as more moderate
Christian jurists such as [everyone but Jefferson and Madison] who never
dreamed of cutting the connection between generic Christianity and the legal
system.

The Supreme Court in Holy Trinity was correct when it observed, 

       While because of a general recognition of this truth the question 
       has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in 
       Updegraph v. The Commonwealth [Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 
       1826], it was decided that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, 
       and always has been, a part of the common law...not Christianity 
       with an established church...but Christianity with liberty of
conscience 
       to all men.' 

This connection between the law and Christianity was not severed by the
Constitution. It certainly wasn't GROUNDED and PROTECTED like I would have
done had I drafted it, but none of the drafters could have imagined the
idiocy of secular humanists in the 20th century, who, with hundreds of
millions of murders committed by secular governments, continue to try and
move the US away from Christianity.

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



Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16642@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205095301.EAA03658@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  The next sentence reads,

      do by the presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God 
      and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a 
      civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and 
      Furtherance of other Ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, 
      constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, 
      constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most 
      [suitable] and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto 
      which we promise all due submission and obedience."

In other words, the laws were the means to the end of glorifying
>God.<<<<

I'm glad you typed that so I didn't have to.

Read this clause.  It
>is a contract between these people that they will obey the laws these people
>make.  

So that they can be obedient to God and bring glory to Him.

>It was made necessary partly because they did not share a religion,

You're mistaken. They all shared the commonly-held belief that everything a
human being does in life must be done to the glory of God, including the
formation of civil society.

>and could not therefore agree to abide by a particular set of "Biblical
>laws."  That they invoked God to smile on their contract is nice -- but it
>does not incorporate the Bible in any operative fashion.

You simply don't understand the thinking of Calvinist Puritans. 
Calvin taught a "universal priesthood of believers," which means that even
being a cobbler or baker was a Divine Vocation, as sacred as a priest's. If
bakers get together to form a union, it is still an explicitly Biblical
venture, in the eyes of the Calvinist bakers. "Due submission" is a biblical
phrase which means God is the Higher Authority. Civil laws are binding unless
they contradict Scripture. There is nothing secular about this compact. It
is thoroughly Scriptural in its intent.

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




Subject: Re: By what authority?
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15235@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205100201.FAA03905@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>You are wrong, of course, and all of the Founders (except the
>later Madison, perhaps) would deny that the authority for government came
>from the people acting autonomously and rebelliously against God. As Lincoln
>put it, any nation that acts outside the authority of God is doomed.<<

>The
>founders wrote it out in the Preamble, clear as a bell.  What possible
reason
>would you have for opposing the Preamble to the Constitution?

Ed, this is just basic American history, all of it, and I'm frankly getting
tired of arguing. "We the People" stands for the proposition that POLITICAL
sovereignty rests with the the people, not the State or the King. "Consent of
the governed" is the byword here. That was the conflict between Britain
andthe colonies. 

"We the People" does NOT stand for the proposition that the people can decide
for themselves whether it is right or wrong to murder, steal, or kidnap. "We
the People" are still "one nation under GOD" (that is, the Christian God)
Even Madison and Jefferson would not (publicly) disagree with that
proposition, as stated by that most influential theologian John Locke, whom I
have already quoted:

      [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators 
      as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions 
      must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of 
      God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws 
      of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, 
      otherwise they are ill made. [Two Treatises on Govenment, Bk II 
      sec 135 quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity {shows Puritan 
      influence}]

You're rapidly degenerating into a sophist, Ed.

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



Subject: Re: By what authority?
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16658@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205100201.FAA03905@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>The founders wrote it out in the Preamble, clear as a bell.  What possible
>reason would you have for opposing the Preamble to the Constitution?

If you can prove that the meaning of the Constitution is that we are no
longer bound to the Law of Nature and of Nature's God, and that we can make
laws which conflict with Scripture, then that is the reason I would oppose
the Preamble and the rest of the Constitution.

Are you arguing that "we the people" means the "People" are gods and can
murder, steal or break Biblical law at will?  

Then I oppose the Constitution, as does every true Christian.

See a Christian attack on People as Gods at 

http://metanet.net/freebooks/docs/21f2_47e.htm

You know, Ed, I do agree with a lot you say. There was a lot of secularism
afloat in those days, and little by little things got worse (from my
perspective) in the years that followed the constitution. I have discussed
this at length on my web site and it is one reason I will not take the oath
to "support the constitution." But while the Constitution does not
effectively guard the objectives stated in the Preamble (because it does not
guard their
Christian roots) you will find me adamant in my contention that the
Constitution did not explicitly repudiate theocracy among the states, and
**did not legally obligate them** to disconnect their legal systems from
their Christian roots. The disconnection came in courts which were not
faithfullly interpreting the Original Intent of the Constitution (as
expressed by the majority of the Framers), but were imposing the religion of
Secular Humanism.

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



Subject: Re: No Biblical govts
pre-1789
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15250@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205100601.FAA04007@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>I said: >Penn lost his grant for a time when James II fell, and by the
>time
>he regained it in 1694,  the Pennsylvania Assembly was beyond his
>control.
>Though he was nominally the sovereign, he was forced to accept the
>growing
>power of self-government, and in 1701, the "Charter of Liberties,"
>which
>gave all real power to the legislature.  Not God, not the Bible --
>the
>legislature.

Kevin responded:  >>But the legislature was required, and
>required itself, to legislate in accord with Biblical law.<<

Perhaps you
>could provide some source for your argument?  The Charter of Liberties does
>not say the legislature must follow Biblical law.

I'll bet it does. All other charters in this day did. Even after the
ratification of the Constitution Pennsylvania required Christian belief for
office holders. I don't have a copy of the Charter. Is it on the web? Can you
send it to me?

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




Subject: Re: No Biblical govts
pre-1789
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16667@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205100401.FAA05449@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>This is an incredible, bizarre, unbelievable statement.
>Calvinism, the most rigorously Biblical brand of Christianity, is in fact a
>species of Humanism?!?!? Unbelievable.<<

If you say so.  Read it and weep.

What WHAT and weep? You provided absolutely no documentation for the
proposition that Calvinism teaches than man is his own source of moral
authority.
(You won't find any, either, but I'll read it if you do.)

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



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15262@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205104101.FAA04813@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>The First Amendment says the government may not teach religion.  All you
have
>to do to get creationism in the schools is do some research that supports it
>and get it published in the science journals.

You're wrong. THere's plenty of anti-Darwinist evidence in the journals, but
humanist judges won't let it be taught. That's what brought about theLouisian
statute.

>Instead, creationists take the
>route of tyranny, doing as the Soviets did with their biology heresies, and
>pass laws requiring their odd views be taught.

Right, as if the Supreme Court hasn't tyrannized Christians for decades,
requiring this or that to be taught or not to be taught.

>In
>deference to this cult, however, we do not teach the scientific case against
>creationism.  Perhaps we should.

??? Huh?

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




Subject: Re: First Amendment
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA15273@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205102001.FAA05849@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>The New Haven Colony charter does not bind us today, nor did it ever bind
>anyone outside of that colony -- IF it bound the government there to pay
>respects.

Ed, you're now degenerating past sophist into Cynic, related to the Greek
word for "dog."  What POSSIBLE line of reasoning could you have to even
suggest that the New Haven Charter was non-binding. Absolutely bizarre, Ed.

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



Subject: Re: Creationism?  
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16685@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205103801.FAA06217@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Jefferson would have found the Louisiana statute particularly odious, I
>believe.  It would prohibit the teaching of Jefferson's musings about
natural
>origins of Virginia, and it would disallow the use of his favorite mastodon
>bones as science class displays.

Prove that the Lousiana statute would disallow display of bones. Absolutely
ludicrous and slanderous! This is your best argument?!?

Philip Johnson is a professor of criminal
>law, and his opinions on evolution are, well, those of a criminal law
>professor.  Johnson believes that all science is atheism.  He's a nut.

I can tell you gave a real thoughtful reading to his books. All science is
atheism.
Yeah, right Ed, that's what he believes. He's a nut, but the Berkeley Law
School hasn't detected it yet. 

>And
>he ignores the body of evidence for evolution.  Not exactly my idea of a
>judicious fellow.

Well you are looking more and more injudicious Ed. Calling Professor Johnson
a "nut" is a tad removed from balanced. Johnson does not ignore the evidence
*for* evolution, he simply wants the evidence AGAINST evolution to be
permitted in schools. This is "injudicious"? Excuse me.

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




Subject: Re: Bible-based law
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 20:38 EST
From: KEVIN4VFT
Message-id: <19971206013800.UAA16701@ladder01.news.aol.com>

In article <19971205153901.KAA18498@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Our government is based on a lot of stuff -- Roman history, Greek history,
>English history, colonial experience, new ideas.  Among all those
influences,
>Christianity is far from the major one. 

Cite an authority. Contra is Donald Lutz, *The Origins of American
Constitutionalism*  (Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1988). A team of
contemporary political scientists embarked on an ambitious ten-year project
to analyze more than 15,000 political writings from the Founding Era
(1760-1805) Those writings were examined with the goal of isolating and
identifying the specific political sources cited amidst the debates in the
establishment of American
government. Which source most influenced the Founders? Four times more than
Montesquieu or Blackstone, twelve times more than Locke, the Founders cited
the Bible.

*******
Why is it that you don't know this, Ed? Because you don't know the Bible.
They didn't always put their reference next to the quotation, e.g., "Exodus
20:12," and so because you don't know the Bible, you don't even know when the
Founders are quoting the Bible. They do it constantly. All you see is the
secular (or what seems secular to you) because that's all you know.
*******

Reporting in Newsweek, 12/27/82, Woodward and Gates observed, "historians are
discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our
Founding document."

>You can look it up in any credible history book, or read the Preamble for
yourself.

I did, Ed. You are wrong.

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