Exactly,
Bacon gets in by keeping a low profile so he doesn't draw attention to himself. Moderates need to cast a strong light on him so people understand his positions and get motivated to defeat him.
But yes, I felt good this morning.
Hey Pat - Good job and thank you for your blog and efforts.
Rich
Congratulations to the students and parents of Kansas. And much thanks to you, Pat, for keeping us informed and involved.
I agree that this is only a small part of the battle. They will keep coming back, and not only in Kansas. We must be ready for these challanges in the years ahead.
But go ahead and smile, even if it's just for today.
Good on ya, Kansas voters. This is a sweet victory, in a period for which victories are few.
Thanks for your help in all this, Pat. Should we come to Kansas and help Connie pack up her desk? (Or don't school board members have their own offices?)
Snoopy dance, Snoopy dance!!!!!!!!!!!
That's wonderful!!!
I must go away for a while now but will return in the autumn to help "deep-six" Bacon and Willard (figuratively speaking of course).
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Pat and all of you other nice posters here (e.g., Dave, Paul, Corkscrew, etc.) for providing me an opportunity to speak out on this important issue of the day, just as I did with members of the local news media in Dover. I love all of you very much.
No matter how any two of us might disagree in other ways on a million different things, we all need to stick together and fight these right-wing fundamentalist morons as hard as we can. It just wouldn't be right in America (or anywhere else for that matter) to have one of you guys burned at the stake as a heretic or have me stoned to death by the "Morality Police" while my church is burned to the ground before my eyes. I remain convinced that these are the places to which us and millions of our fellow citizens would be led against our wills if these people ever have an opportunity for sustained governmental control and action. You guys keep fighting on the logic and skepticism front. I will keep fighting them on the ideological front.
Hang in there!!! I'll be back to help "...take home the Bacon."
Thanks for the updates!
They're asking on daily kos if Jack wempe has a website?
Has anybody found one?
Hey decelles, do you mean cast a "harsh light" on Bacon?
Hahahahahahaha
YOU know what IS funnier than shit?
That Harry MacDonald COULD HAVE WON if he hadn't been assciated with KANSAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE to the degree that he was.
More than one person told me they are turned off by the constant attacks on relgion that come from there.
Well, Trolly, had it not been for you and your constant badgering, there might not have been such an energetic rejection of your pals in the west and southeast.
Your incessant mind-games kept several activists focused on the real implications of defeat, and led to a much more vigorous defense of good science education.
For your service to our cause, let me be the first to offer you my heartfelt thanks. Let me also congratulate John Calvert for relying upon your admirable services.
You're a real pal.
More than one person told me they are turned off by the constant attacks on relgion that come from there.
Examples? Or are you just talking about their unwillingness to let creationist push their religiously-motivated views into public schools?
Congratulations to the citizens of Kansas.
Congratulations and thanks to you, Jack, for all your hard work.
Jack Krebs frequently posts to the Panda's Thumb blog, and contributes to the Kansas Citizens for Science website:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://www.kcfs.org/
Congratulations to Kansas and to "Red."
I suppose that it would be too much to ask for the Republicans to merely lose across the board?
kryptonite, how did that sales meeting go?
+
Trolly, you don't realize how amusing you really are.
The two moderate incumbent statewide Republican candidates won easily over two well known and well funded conservatives in the Secretary of State and Insurance Commissioner races.Turnout was low (10-15%), which normally benefits conservatives, in part because of the 100+ degree heat. Also, all the gubernatorial candidates were conservative, but that didn't help in the BOE races either.
This is a much more marked swing away from conservatives than has been portrayed by our Kansas newspapers and wire services.
yes, those rightwingers wont give up. they will expect that public schools should be open minded, allowing for differing ideas and thoughts (except for the obscene).
do you suppose the new bd members will allow for changes in curriculum to stop the censorship of America's history and the spiritual foundations of the nation, where the founders, including Madison declared that all of our laws were subordinate to those of God? if they did, it would mean that they had some passion for the truth. we can hope....
Not every conservative believes that public schools should be "open minded" by teaching a fundamentalist Christian point of view in the classroom. There are Christians who are secure in their faith enough to leave liturgy to churches, not public schools.
Of course, nothing obscene should be taught in school, but I have a feeling that your definition of obscene may rule out many great works of literature...including the Torah and the Christian Holy Bible.
I'm curious - how do you believe American history is being censored?
Congrats, Kansas! Glad to hear the good news. Great work on the part of Pat and others like Jack Krebs who took the message to the people.
Charley: At this stage, I still fail to see any who are attacking anything spiritual. They are only defending education from those who have attacked science. What the founding fathers thought is of no consequence. This wasn't about morals or god or religion or patriotism but about power and ignorance. Fortunately, enough people in KS have made it into the 21st Century with the rest of the country and can tell the difference.
Kansas: Don't become too complacent. It is a sure bet that the IDers will mount another offensive sometime. And the troll will continue with his straw men and red herrings no matter how many scientists and educators applaud ans support a real science curriculum.
MaleficentZ - In regards to your question on how American history is being censored, just take a look at the drive to rewrite history to make this a "Christian Nation".
Many aspects of our history are based on partial truths, such as the "First Thanksgiving" which was actually a story cooked up by the Lincoln administration as an attempt to find a unifying force to keep the nation together just before the Civil War. Also with respect to Lincoln, he's generally made out to be a very non-discriminating sort. However, personal letters reveal he was anything but.
I'd suggest reading the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for a look at how slatned American History we teach is. Ironically, the real history is often more interesting than what is actually taught.
charley,
You might try actually studying some U.S. history somewhere other than at your pastor's knee.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; . . . ."
This treaty was unanimously approved by the United States Senate on June 7,1797, and signed by President John Adams.
I also suggest that you read the letters and papers of James Madison, where you will find ample and compelling evidence that he, among many other of the "Founding Fathers" were strong and active supporters of the separation of church and state.
.................................
Bravo, Kansas. From what I’ve seen of how the citizens organized yourselves and swung into action, you will be ready this autumn.
"More than one person told me they are turned off by the constant attacks on relgion that come from there."
Yeah, they’re so "turned off" that they visit my website and tell me all about it! They just can’t get enough, it seems. But hey, it’s cool.
and where do I find that quote from madison on separation of church and state? you wont...madison was a strong believer in the freedom of religion, not from it. he feared tyranny of government using religion, as had been done in europe and esp. england. he believed in the separation of governmental interference into religion, not from the influence of religious and moral principles into government and the culture. in this he and virtually all of the founders with the exception of Paine and a few others, believed firmly. Our liberties come from God, the founders knew and believed this, and our laws were predicated upon the concept that man's laws were inferior to the laws of God (which are always superior)
it was Voltaire, and the French revolution which believed in 'separation of church and state', a far different and more bloody experience from our own revolution...their leaders were freed from any moral or religious restraint, just as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were, the greatest (secular)butchers in the history of mankind....
It seems the election hurt trolly's feelings. 
LOL
Charley:
Put those silly "America is a Christian nation" books away. Those books are twisted lies that are trying to revise American history to pave the way for turning our country into a Christian reconstructionist police state where YOU and your family would most likely be killed because of whatever you believe.
I am something of a historian myself. Many fine Christians are Ph.D. historians who teach in colleges and universities all over the nation. They know this Christian nation stuff is revisionary history, and they will tell you so to your face if you just go ask them. Pick any 10 Christian history professors at random at several different state university and go ask them. They'll tell you its all crap, and they will be telling you the truth too.
And that Tripoli Treaty language that you chose to ignore because it "just must be some slanted demon's lie." No, Charley, that's what the document really says. You can actually get a copy and see for yourself. In addition, the term "wall of separation between church and state" was actually first coined by Thomas Jefferson in his note to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson is known to have even written his own Bible to take out the parts in the real Bible that he didn't like. You can even get a copy and read it. I thought you might appreciate that some because today's fundamentalists would like to take out all that stuff about loving your neighbor as yourself, etc. and flush it down the toilet---now wouldn't you---come on---be truthful now?
Well charley, let's see...
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-- James Madison, April, 1774
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-- James Madison
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
-- John Adams
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
- Thomas Jefferson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
- Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
- Benjamin Franklin
hmmm, good thing these guys were more interested in founding a free nation than in starting a new denomination.
yes a free nation, founded on the laws of nature and of nature's God, moral and religious principles, because they knew that in order to remain free, that man's nature had to be disciplined, by moral religious principles..I will be happy to reply in kind to each of yours. the quote of yours from Adams i believe was followed by, 'I mean pure hell....'
check out Thomas Paine thoughts on science and religion at
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/
the following is Benjamin Franklin's reply to Thomas Paine after paine sent franklin a pre published copy of "the age of Reason" keep in mind that both of these men were among the least religious of our founders, with paine having swallowed hook line and sinker, the garbage produced by the French Revolution----
my favorite line "if men be this wicked with religion, what would they be without it"? we have begun to see..at Columbine, Peduca, and moving to a suburb near you...
TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself
Congratulations Kansas, I am overjoyed about your election results. There is always a constant worry that Oklahoma will follow the steps of Kansas and attack science.
Now, maybe the elected fundamentalists down here will think twice about destroying science here in OK.
One final thing, the Founders were indeed religious men (and women) and were a mix of Christian and Deist with a few Atheists and Jews for good measure. The majority knew the history of Europe and did not want that to occur in America so they created the First Amendment which is essentially about Establishment and the Free Exercise of religion. Simply put, the government cannot establish/promote a religion/church nor can they block the individuals ability to worship as they choose.
People can pull out all sorts of quotes from the Founders for and against the separation of church and state but what really matters is where it really counts and that is in the written documents of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence has NO Christian language and what it does use is essentially Deistic in nature.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights have NO religious language at all and only mention religion as part of the governments restriction on individual rights.
They wanted the government to stay out of religion and religion to stay out of government. The idea of a one sided wall is ridiculous and the Constitution proves this to be true.
They did believe that there were the laws of God but they had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity and had all to do with the idea that God granted humanity "natural" rights that included freedom of conscience and religion to name a few.
Oh well, I am happy for you Kansans and keep up the good work.
Oh well,
Charley-again with the Columbine. Please demonstrate any religious/atheist element to the shootings. Please. You've been asked before. And remember, what some people "believe" is different from what the shooters said/wrote etc.
James Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
“Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. ...Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. “
Madison's "Detached Memorandum," written after he retired from public life, possibly in 1823.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/madi...on/
objects.html
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
The most notable attempt was that in Virginia to establish a Gen assessment for the support of all Christian sects. This was proposed in the year (1784) by P. H. [Patrick Henry], aided by the remaining prejudices of the Sect which before the Revolution had been established by law.[..] When the Legislature assembled, the number of Copies & signatures prescribed displayed such an overwhelming opposition of the people, that the proposed plan of a genl assessmt was crushed [..]
In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" in the preamble [..] The amendment was discussed, and rejected [..]
But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. [..]
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? [...]
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal r
Ooops, exceeded the cutoff. A few words more...
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.[...]
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root...
Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.
The objections to them are:
1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms.
2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities.
3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans...
4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.
5. The last & not the least objection is the liability of the practice to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well as the increase of party animosities
I would like to say for all those who despair in attempting to counter the words of a troll... Don't give in, even if you never convince him (which you mos likely won't) you've certainly taught me a thing or two.
So please keep countering the trolls... its not for them that these arguments need be said, its for those of us who aren't certain why the troll is wrong (though I think most of us can tell he is)
So thank you
FYI - Roger Williams coined the term "Separation of Church and State" when he was kicked out by the Puritans and founded the Baptist denomination.
Barton and Wallbuilders are proven and known liars so using their material violates those 10 Commandments that are supposed to be God-breathed and oh so important to fundies.
The "Christian Nation" is a lie plain and simple.
Joe
Congratulations to the voters of Kansas and to the tireless proprietors of this fine blog!
charley troll should put his Wholly Babble down and stroll to any library and . . . .read . . . . the papers and letters of James Madison.
Google "James Madison" . . . .
charley shouldn't believe me or anyone else here; he should read the stuff for himself. Cross-check among different volumes. . . .
It's called l e a r n i n g. You know, the thing charley and his troll buddies want Kansas students to avoid.
Yikes!
...........................
Joe:
Thank you for correcting me on that one. If Roger Williams were to see what the current Southern Baptist Convention has become, he would shred his clothes in agony with his own fingernails.
The victories in Dover and Kansas are just the beginning. Soon, I believe that mainline Christian denominations such as the United Methodist Church will join in the fight against fundamentalist ignorance, fundamentalist arrogance, and fundamentalist neglect of nearly every passage in the Bible that addresses Christian love, the poor, and a host of other important issues. Their's is a twisted and bankrupt form of the Christian faith that is so weak that it needs government at all levels to prop it up. I'm sorry, but the Jesus I believe in doesn't need Uncle Sam or anyone else to prop him up. He gets along quite well without it.
Sorry about the sales meeting, Robert.
Maybe things will get better!
chuckle...
Charley/Reanimator/Troll:
What's with all of the headspace? If you have something meaningful to say, say it.
And read up a little. You don't have a freaking clue about the points that you're trying to argue.
Before the thread dies...
One of charley's standard dodges is to point out the founders' belief in (and use of the term) "religion" as necessary to morality (i.e. see Franklin's response to Paine, vis "moral religious principles" above).
The founders were well aware that, say, Theravada Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic. Secular humanism is today considered a type of religion in important ways. The founders, who understood Hume's demonstration that no set of facts alone will justify a moral claim, merely meant that some meta-ethical ideas are always required in any moral system that depends on justification (as opposed to non-cognitive/non-rational systems, emotive ones, etc. which they opposed).
Traditionally, ethical ideas are separated into 3 levels:
Applied ethics is just applying larger normative ethical principles to specific situations. Those normative principles in turn are based on meta-ethical understandings.
So what if major founders routinely used "religious" to describe meta-ethics? Franklin didn't use "Biblical", did he?
What's with the gaps in Reanimator's fossil record?
Has anyone noticed that the Discovery Institute has been absoultely quiet about the KBOE primary election last night?
I guess they just got tired from "Standing up for Kansas". . . . . .
"Reanimator" (aka Trolly, Legion, etc.) has decided it has identified its persistent shadow, so, after its habit, hints that it is taking its spleen off-forum.
In disaster's wake, personal retaliation is all it has left.
Dipwad, you pissed off many more than that single poster during your reign of error. You'd do better checking out the regulars at Borders on Metcalf.
And that's all the hint you're ever going to get.
Occam's Aftershave and Brightlee: I d'off my chapeau to your research (and me a History major an' all...).
And speaking of long-ago college... Charley: My Psych 101 prof.--one of the most well-adjusted souls I've met, before or since--would have asked you to ask yourself how separation of Church and State threatens you. You are so vociferous (and so willfully blind to the possiblity to any system of morals that might not stem from your interpretation of the Bible) that I cannot reach any other conclusion but that you are very, very afraid.
Why? Yes, I consider myself an agnostic. That does not mean that I would dream of boarding up your church. What I am demanding, as my American birthright, is that my morals and values not be treated as second-class citizens simply because I don't quote them out of a 2000+ year-old document. I pay my taxes; I donate a fair amount of time and money to charity; my most egregious criminal behavior was an illegal left turn in 1990 (egregious stupidity, too--I cut off a squad car). So, frankly, I get more than a little brassed at the suggestion that I can't possibly have any morals because I don't buy into your version of Christianity.
So how, in your Universe, can someone like myself be considered a threat?
waldteufel,
"Holy Babble," nice, very nice.
To charley, you mess with Tom Paine at your peril, son. He's the greatest of all the founders, though he was not one.
Before going to bed, again - yay Kansas voters. You rock!
Has anyone noticed that the Discovery Institute has been absoultely quiet about the KBOE primary election last night?
Well, not really.
How big of a back pedal is that?
Congrats Kansas. It's not over however, keep it up.
Charley, so I guesss you didn't have much to say recently huh? Your arguments on the founders are oft refuted and quite rediculous. Jefferson and Madison were very much against having a government based on any one religion. Your atmepts to say otherwise prove your ignorance.
Congratulations to Kansas from here abroad..
In my country one creationist candidate of parliament and EU-parliament lose both elections. He campaigned by ridiculing evolution in religious radio.
We can conclude that mocking evolution is waste of time and money.. these elections send a remarkable message.
many here, obviously have a public school education, but you may wish to contact any am. history/govt prof at any of our state universities for verification of this fact. our laws, as stated in the first sentence of the Declaration (via blackstone's laws of nature and the laws of nature's God), are subordinate to the laws of God. this is why so many lawyers studied theology and religion before going to law school to understand the foundations of law. you might wish to check with Prof. Sacher or Gregory at Emporia State, or Linder at KSU, or any other informed expert on the subject. your vision of America is the French Revolution, but that is not accurate. Madison was an anglican turned Presbyterian.
once again, 'separation of church and state' is no where in the constitution, the first amendment, or any founding document, nor was it ever uttered by anyone anytime during the constitutional convention according to all of the notes taken there. it was forced into american law and culture by a member of the KKK, Judge Hugo Black who was a catholic bigot.
here are a few more of Madison's thoughts..
to William Bradford he wrote-
"a watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglct to have our names enrolled in the annals of heaven"
in support of the Virginia bill of rights he said "it is the mutual duty of all to practice christian forbearance, love and charity toward one another."
Madison's proposed wording for the first amendment was----
'the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any NATIONAL RELIGION be established".
--elliot's ebates,volIIIpp.655-656,june 25,1788
no national church, nothing about separation of church and state..
"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
religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged" Northwest Ordinance, a founding document..note the importance of religion and morality over knowledge (a prerequisite)
"the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. (but good for censorship)
It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned"...chief justice of the Supreme Court..William Rehnquist
"of all the dispositions and habit which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars...(I guess we know what he would think of the ACLU)....And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be m
oh about columbine.. one of those lost souls asked the students in the library if anyone was a christian.. when a girl named Kathy stood up and said she believed in Jesus Christ, she was shot dead. I would call that religious persecution.
pOOR KRYPTONITE IS PISSED!
And he has resorted to his usual method of making hints at subtle threates.
I don't know if he is speaking to all of us trolls, or an individual, probably the later.
YOU see, he likes to target people for personal attack on forums and then when they tal back he gets angry.
But you can't blame him really, as he is the true atheist liberal. who can't stand the idea to free expression of ideas...even if they are sometimes admittedly ridiculous...that do not conform to his.
Atheism at its finest. Its what they always do when they get the chance.
washington continued--
and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds...reason and experience both forbid us to expect thta national morality can prevail in exclusion of religiou principle"...pretty clear, without religion you will not have good behavior. now redacted (censored) in the Blue Valley History or govt textbook....remember, self government as a nation depends on moral self governed individuals.(according to our founders)
"religion is the only solid basis of good morals, therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God"...Gouverneur Morris, the most active member of the constitutional convention speaking 173 times, yet he is unknown by public school students...
the greatest pillars of all govt and social life..are virtue, morality and religion. this is the armor my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible...Patrick Henry
"the bible must always be the number one textbook in schools"..who as a membe of the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 20, 1789, provided the wording for the First Amendment..hmmm....
and as one of the last of the founders still alive in 1836, John Quincy Adams said this at the 50th anniversary of the 'Declaration of Ind."
"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day?...is it not that in the chainof human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? that it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? is it not that the Declaration of Ind. first organized the social compact on the foundation of the redeemer's mission upon the earth? that it laid the cornerstoned of human govt. upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
shouldnt we stop the censorship of the words, ideas and beliefs of the founders in public schools? shouldnt public schools encourage freedom of thought, debate and ideas instead of a single minded secular point of view?
shouldnt the founders ideas be presented in public schools? shouldnt we encourage the truth and not censore it?
Our nation was perhaps the first and only nation founded upon the idea that all of our rights and freedoms come from God, not man, and it is the secret of our success.
in any other world view, our rights must come from someone or some ideology controlled by men.
"We have no govt armed with power capable of contending with human passions if they are not bridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."..John Adams
to read the founders, is to think outside of the box in 2006 America.
occarnaftershave--
well, Franklin (truly one of our least religious founders did say..
"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern". Constitution of the am bible society, p7
at the Constitutional convention he said
"we have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel"...ben franklin
---jas madison, 'the papers of James Madison, henry d. gilpin, editor(washington:langtree&sullivan,1840), vol.IIp.985,june 28,1787
and on June 28th, according to Madison's notes, Franklin said the following during a difficult time..
"in this situation of this assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to ditinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that w4e have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understanding? in the beginning of the contest with g.b., when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance?
I have lived sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more conviincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men.(an active involvement here, not a diests non active concept of God)
And if a sparrow cannnot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? we have been assured in the holy writings that except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it". I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the buiilders of Babel"
I therefore beg leave to move---henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, adn its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service"
again, 'the papers of James Madison, henry d. gilpin, editor(washington:langtree and O'Sullivan, 1840), vol.II,pp984-986,june 28,1787
you are right, this is one of our least religious founders, so you can imagine how religious most of the others were....
cubbiclegrl--you are right, i am sure that there are many athiests more moral than I am. but these are the words of the founders, not mine, and I believe that their point is correct. that without any religious moral standards, man's nature uncontrolled will lead to his darker side and a dark future for this nation. the founders understood self-government as even more important on the individual level. they believed that only religious moral self governed individuals would produce self governed families which might lead to a self governed nation. they saw this connection quite clearly. an early speaker of the house, John Winthrop said..
"men in a word, must be controlled by a power within them, or a power without them, by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man.
by the Bible, or by the bayonette..
catherine- many liberals today love tom paine, but that was not the case of the founders. after his attack on Christianity via 'age of reason', he was hounded from this nation for his views...
oh about columbine.. one of those lost souls asked the students in the library if anyone was a christian.. when a girl named Kathy stood up and said she believed in Jesus Christ, she was shot dead. I would call that religious persecution.
charley | Homepage | 08.03.06 - 9:58 am | #
"Valeen was bleeding from 34 shotgun pellets. She was down on her hands and knees saying, "Oh, my god, my god, don't let me die." One of the shooters then asked her if she believed in god. Valeen said yes. He asked why. "Because I believe and my parents brought me up that way," Valeen responded. The shooter reloaded, but did not shoot Valeen again."
"Cassie's Christian martyrdom not only did not happen, what really happened was exactly opposite. The shooters were not targeting Christians. A Christian was not killed for professing their faith, but a Christian that professed faith was spared."
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
l...bine_martyr.php
Sorry charley, still full of crap. Can't even get the names right.
Charley-still waiting for the second law of thermodynamics you promised me some months back . . .
Charley-still waiting for the second law of thermodynamics you promised me some months back . .
That includes the math, right?
And this:
http://www.salon.com/news/featur...bine/
print.html
Gris;
I'm just waiting for him to tell me which one of the 118 versions posted on some idiots website he wanted to talk about. I'll worry about the math when he lets me know.
Here's another report on the actual f-ing investigation:
http://www.religioustolerance.or...rg/
sch_vio7.htm
Hey charley, this is fun, I could do this all day, really. Provide me with a police investigation or other official report that comes to your conclusions. Really, try. I mean it. Otherwise, I'll have to believe that you are a deliberate liar.
Gris;
I'm just waiting for him to tell me which one of the 118 versions posted on some idiots website he wanted to talk about. I'll worry about the math when he lets me know.
Gotcha.
Just don't forget about it; since the 2nd law is mathmatically based, any argument using has to be expressed that way eventually.
Gris;
It'll never get that far. Most of the so-called 2LOTS cited had nothing to do with thermodynamics. Hell, most of them had nothing to do with coherence.
Charley: Thanks for the reply, and for the copious deuling quotes. Problem is, we can fire quotes at each other all day and we're not going to change anyone's mind any more than firing bullets ever changes the minds on either side.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your reply, but I think that you answered the question I asked (possibly without meaning to?). I think you fear your own dark side--and project those fears onto anyone who has not placed the collar and chain of "God" on themselves. I believe that we all have a dark side. But I also believe that you can twist any religion or "ism" around to make it override the natural compassion that I also believe that we all have. By giving those darker impulses the sanction of religion (and I'm including the "isms" with that), it very easily becomes a matter of power corrupting the person or group. And the more power, the more possibility for corruption.
That is the essence of my fear of living under a de-facto theocracy. Any fool or rogue can claim to know what God "really" meant by the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. (David Koresh and Jim Jones cases in point.) Heck, I can go online and become an ordained minister in fifteen minutes.
So, even assuming that there are any laws made by God, you cannot reflexively assume that they will be interpreted and carried out "correctly" by fallible mortals.
As an agnostic (again including the absence of "ism"s), you pretty much have to accept that a perfect world is an impossible thing, and that heavy-handed attempts to make it perfect often cause more harm than good in the long run. But you also accept that because we are "on our own", we are also likely to be more realistic about what can and can't be done to improve our lives and those of others. And, I hope, carry out that work with the humility of knowing that even doing your best will fall far short of perfection.
All the same, I don't think it's a bad way to live. Certainly, you can motivate people more strongly with a pure appeal to religion (as opposed to simple empathy). But I think that History has demonstrated time and again that you can make any holy book appeal to people's nobler instincts--or their most base impulses.
And the Founding Fathers certainly recognized God. No one denies that. But they certainly weren't naive enough to ignore the fact that putting the State at the disposal of the Church would quickly devolve into a war over WHOSE church. (Don't forget that Franklin had to run the printing press by himself when his brother ran afoul of preacher Cotton Mather.) Please don't kid yourself that making America a Christian nation in 2006 would be any different.
All in all, Charley, I understand that you don't trust human beings to run their lives without some blueprint from above. It wasn't particularly easy for me to accept that humans will never completely overcome their baser natures. But I wish you would have as he
[Ooops--cut off above]
But I wish you would have as healthy a fear of what horrors humans can commit when they decide (like Henry VIII) that "God and my conscience are in perfect agreement."
Laws are based on values and morals, regardless of whether the lawmakers claim that those laws are based on God's morals or what seems self-evidently a Good Idea. To me, the humility of admitting that we are just muddling through on our best judgement is infinitely preferable to the hubris of claiming to know what God "really" wants. Assuming that you can let go of the need for perfection, is that really such a dangerous thing?
I try to never get into these arguments because they most often generate into fruitless wheel spinning where both sides are fence posts---and we know what it is like talking to a fence post. That is what is happening here.
From where I sit, I have only one message for you Charley. I am a Christian too, I think you are wrong in most of what you believe, and I love my country too. There are millions upon millions upon millions just like me. We respect your right to believe whatever amalgamation of religious and political nonsense is swirling around in your skull. Many of us might even be willing to defend your right to have those beliefs with our very lives, even though we disagree bitterly with you. However, we do not see that from you and your kind. What we see is a plan to take over American government at all levels to FORCE what you believe on every man, women and child in America. If you think that is going to happen without opposition from your fellow Americans, you are sadly mistaken. Those millions upon million upon millions of us will defend our homes, our families, and our churches from you to the last drop of blood coursing through us---and we make up at least 50 percent of the American population. You need to step back a second and think about whether you and your kind are willing to take our country into a blood-dripping Civil War like 1861-1865 because that is where you, Connie Morris, and your ilk are leading us. How would you like to explain that to God one day?
"How would you like to explain that to God one day?
AmeriChristian | 08.03.06 - 2:31 pm | #"
I've always wondered how the Crusaders felt, having to wade through blood to the sepulchre of the "Prince of Peace".
her name was Cassie, thanks for the correction. but it was no myth, she was murdered at Columbine.
cubbiclegrl-- some good observations. but a culture generally operates from one position (unless you are in a cultural war as we now find ourselves). if everyone has their own set from which laws are based, then we are in a free for all where absolutely anything goes because everyone is operating from a different standard. everything must be tolerated (except morals and principles of course) this is why people of faith have the same right to influence the culture and govenment and move its positioning as any other individual or organization may. it is why we are debating these points, and why we will have conflict as long as we hold differing views. But do we allow these ideas, or do we exclude them because someone has found a clever way of saying 'this is hate speech', or 'it violates separation'
I dont believe in any denomination holding power over the govt.,just as Madison did not. (but Madison believed in complete religious freedom) nor can or should I tell you how to live. nor can you tell me or my family and friends how to live think or feel or redefine what is sin and what is not. but I do believe in influencing the culture and govt toward higher principles, just as larry flynt and the ACLU exercise the right to do just the opposite.
as you have noticed, no one has refuted my argument concerning the spiritual foundations of our laws and nation, nor of the connection between theology and the law. this is because they cannot, other than to call me a liar, which is the standard response. why is our history being censored? shouldnt we teach the truth in public schools? or should we censor the truth because some group feels that sensitivity to some non-constitutional philsophy (separation) makes them feel better? it wont happen, the truth is more important than some group feeling warm and fuzzy about their secular beliefs. the truth always finds a way, and it always will. the only problem is, will we still have the freedom to acknowledge it? or do we become like the many socialists models of the 20th century where the government tells us what to think and when to think it. we should allow the truth, and for unpopular ideas, even those of the founders.
God Bless...
Atheist liberals don't need to REFUTE your arguments, Charley.
They want to shut you up, and like all true atheists liberals they can't stand it when people don't agree with them.
Just hope these people don't ever get control over you.
Atheists have proven they can make the crusaders look like a simple case of disturbing the piece.
See you in the GULAG!!
"her name was Cassie, thanks for the correction. but it was no myth, she was murdered at Columbine. "
Yes, she was charley, but not because of her religion. That was the myth. And it is scum-suckers like yourself, trading on the murder of those children for your own political ends, who should be ashamed.
Charley:
Thanks for your reply. I do disagree that we will slide into anarchy with a firm partition between Church and State. We both agree that no denomination should hold power over the others. But there is no way of avoiding factionalism (oftentimes violent) that once you tear down the wall between Church and State. Christianity took the reins of what was left of the Roman Empire, and the schisms began and people were calling each other heretics. And whichever faction had the actual political power was the one that squelched the others (with varying degrees of success). Normally, I avoid the "slippery slope" kind of thinking. But the tale has been told just been told too darned many times to make me think that human nature has managed to evolve beyond those tendencies. Sadly, only the heresies and "isms" change, and I do not expect to see the game played any differently in my lifetime.
To my mind, acknowledging the spirituality of those who founded this nation is not a big deal. But the FFs also had the humility to realize that their judgement was not the last word for this nation. Hence, the Constitution was made to be amended with an eye toward specifying additional freedoms rather than taking away ones that existed.
I don't know where you went to school, but my high school (blue state, even!) didn't shut out religion from our History or English classes. I agree that they dumbed it down. But as I later learned in college, the history of the U.S. doesn't always present a flattering picture of religion. My guess is that they were sidestepping controversy and not actively censoring. Y'see, It's okay to talk about the Salem Witch Trials and read "The Scarlet Letter" now, y'see, b/c there aren't any Puritans around who would think of themselves by that name. Ergo, no screaming parents at the School Board meeting. But try talking about the Episcopalian Church's involvement with the slave trade on the other hand... Yikes! Teachers and Principals are like the rest of us--they'd rather just do their jobs without being yelled at.
Regarding our laws being influenced by religion, I believe that they draw on a number of sources. Not insignificantly, Roman Law, English common law, and probably some interlopers from canonical law. I'll admit that that's not my forte in history.
I do believe that the only hope for us is that we debate things like adults. The truth, as you say, will always find a way. But we have the right to demand that any "truth" stand on its own legs, rather than being propped up by quotes from books that claim to be from a higher authority--and may or may not be twisted to suit the opinions of the speaker.
Well, as usual, nothing has been resolved or solved with all of this banter. The reason is because one fence post is talking to another fence post. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that something was indeed resolved for at least a couple of years in the Kansas primary. On the real front lines of this so-called Culture War
there was a victory for Jesus, Superman, truth, justice, and the American way. The victory did not come by one chief protagonist convincing his ideological opposite. The victory came by one protagonist entity convincing the men sitting on the fence in the middle. If I recall my statistics, only about 15 percent of the American people are like Charley, and just to be fair, only about 15 percent are "whacko leftists." That leaves about 70 percent of us sitting at various locations in the middle and subject to being swayed one way or another by whoever is most convincing.
Frankly, for our side, I have a lot of hope for the future in this war. We are making our points very well to the middle ground folks and the right wingers are not. That's why we keep winning and will keep winning. In addition, I think we are finding that the American people are not the stupid, led-by-the-nose sheep the DI public relations people take them to be.
However, no matter how hard we fight, in the end, the religious right will implode and destroy itself. For one thing, factual truth---even Biblical truth---is not on their side. The truth always wins out in the end. Rather than trying to advance their point of view with plain, old-fashioned truth, they resort to lies, distortions, and deceit. Apparently they think this is clever and that they are just using the "modern techniques of public relations." The problem is that all of the lies, deceit, and distortion are so utterly transparent that any person with reasonable intelligence can see it for what it really is. When they combine this stuff with the name of "Jesus," it makes them look bad, it makes the calling of Jesus look bad, and it calls into serious question whether they are really Christians. Finally, even if these right wingers obtain the power they seek for a time, they are going to bite off more than they can chew as they grow ever more extremist in their perspectives and demands of the public. The days are coming when they will start demanding store closures on Sundays, banning of beer sales at baseball games, standards in skirt lengths worn in public, and all sorts of other nonsense. As Jesus might say himself, "Some will have never tasted death until they try to take Billy's beer or chewing tobacco away." When that day comes, the whole shebang will wither in the twinkling of an eye.
cubbiclgrl-
all I want is to see that the truth about the foundations of our nation (still the greatest), be taught in schools. that is it.
You are right, English Common law was our legal inheritance,(along with some influence of Roman civil law) common law was founded upon the laws of nature's God (the bible, ten commandments). it is why the Supreme Court bldg displays 3 copies of the 10 commandments, and why there is a full faced figure of Moses in the house of reps. and why religious inscription cover the buildings and memorials in D.C. we can debate over the evils of those who used christianity to justify horendous crimes, and I will concede some points, but I believe this nation is our world's greatest hope.
it was the work of a great christian in England, Wilberforce who ended the slave trade and then slavery in England. and it was in the Christian churches of the North that slavery found its greatest opposition here. christianity and Judaism when practiced, works to govern our behavior for the good.
I believe the 20th century has shown us what evil can be unleashed on the world when faith has been removed, and replaced by secular ideology. we should reject it here. we now see the softening of crimes against children, where judges hand out soft sentencing to rapists and pedophyles because they have been freed from any moral or religious restraint. I believe that the 'secularists' will be successful in pushing our culture to the left with even more unrestrained personal freedoms than now. but I also believe we will live to see the consequences of those actions, and that at some point faith will intercede to reverse it.
(refocus charley) My real point (which I will continue to press) is this, why have our public schools censored the spiritual foundations of our nation and laws, when they are obviously critical to any educated understanding of our nation?
It leaves us with the only possible option of changing public school curriculm to allow for the truth, or providing tax credits or vouchers to allow parents to place their students in schools where they may hear the truth.
either way, in America the truth still finds a way.
americhristian- God loves you, and so do i! the tripoli thing, huh? Washington never signed it, and it was part of an attempt to rescue american sailors from a muslim nation that was very extreme (as many are today), about their religious PC. but it wasnt anything close to a founding document like the 'northwest ordinance', which talks about establishing schools to promote religion and morality.
yes, separation of church and state comes from a personal private letter of Jeffersons, not from any govt document, and certainly it was not the opinion of the other founders. but I believe it was used in the context to explain why the govt would not intervene in church matters, or establish a national church?
all the points I have made here with respect to our nation' foundations, I verified with two leading am. history/govt prof's at Emporia State Univ.
"all the points I have made here with respect to our nation' foundations, I verified with two leading am. history/govt prof's at Emporia State Univ.
charley | Homepage | 08.04.06 - 5:21 am | #"
Appeal to authority.
Names, please. For independent verification.
"common law was founded upon the laws of nature's God (the bible, ten commandments)"
Anybody got the timeline handy-I'm pretty sure that common law predates christianity in england by a couple centuries.
Well, we'll have to put up with Legion until Tuesday, at least. Might as well 'enjoy' his incoherence until then..
Keep in mind that Willard had, and will have, the Discovery Institue funneling money into his campaign funds. They also did alot of mialers, newspaper inserts, and phone calling in District 7. There was no verbal support from the educational people, even though they know the man says one thing and has always voted with the ultra-conservatives. Jack Wempe will need alot of support to beat him and I for one am going to do what I can to make that happen.
By all means, efforts should now be focused on Districts 7 and 3.
Hey charley:
God does not necessarily equal the Bible. That's your belief. Even if the founders were God-fearing men who believed that God should be involved in the governance of this nation (questionable), whose God? Who gets to decide?
What of those of us who believe in a higher power, something greater than us, but don't believe that the Bible is the word of God? What of those of us who don't believe in God but use our own senses, our reason, and our intellect to guide us to lead moral lives?
Your way = George Bush's way = American Taliban. Good luck with that. I'll fight you all the way. Apparently so will a lot of other people, based on the election results.
there are so many responses I could make here, but we have all made them and they seem to bring us no where closer together.
I wish all of you the best. try to keep an open mind to the points I have made, and if you do the research, I know you will discover the truth for yourself. the founders lives were immersed in Judeo Christian teachings, our national inheritance and freedoms are do in large part to this fact.
always seek the truth, and if I have been wrong about my observations of evolution, I will gladly admit it. but valid theories should always break down to easily understood concepts.
a great teacher once told me that quiet logic is an orator's best weapon, and too often I have failed to adhere to that thought, but calling people liars or invoking extremists websites is not helpful.
read Washington's farewell address, lincoln's second inaugural. this nation was not founded as a secular nation, as was France. If you want to make it secular, you have that right, but dont revise history to support your position. John Kennedy said that 'learning without liberty is always in peril'.
I think it was G.K. Chesterton that said that the problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried.
God bless all of you in your quest, and always trust your heart to lead you to the truth.
in life, you may discover that those with the greatest wisdom are often those who have suffered the greatest pain. someone mentioned Rachel Scott from Columbine, so I thought I would close with a speech from her father to the u.s. house judiciary comm. on May 27,1999. he wasnt recieved well by many on the committee...
"since the dawn of creation there has been both good and evil in the hearts of men and women. we all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence.
the first recorded act of violence was when cain slew his brother abel. the villain was not the club he used. neither was it the nca, the national club association. the true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in cain''s heart. In the days that followed columbine, i was amazed at the number of finger pointing at the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA, I dont even own a gun. I am not here to defend or represent the NRA, they are not responsible for my daughters death. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's death I would be their strongest opponent. I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the blame lies! much of the blame lies here in this room. much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.
Darrell Scott then read a poem he wrote just before his congressional appearance--
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
your words are empty air.
you've stripped away our heritage
you've outlawed simple prayer.
now gunshots fill our classrooms
and precious children die.
you seek for answers everywhere,
and ask the question why?
you regulate restrictive laws,
through legislative creed,
and yet you fail to understand
That God is what we need."
Keep the faith!
correction, I think Kennedy said "learning without liberty is always in vain"
there are some good teachers out there, many of them fear association with ideas (even the founders) which are not politically correct, lest it affect their careers.
given the opportunity, you schould take a course from Sacher or Gregory at ESU, or Cheryl Pittenger at Blue Valley North.
Charley: Sorry, I've been offline for a couple of days. You're still dodging my question of how mixing Church and State will not open the floodgates to sectarianism. And still not answering the question of why religion doesn't have to answer for the evil it's done as well as the good it's accomplished. You also persist in equating non-belief in God with communism and Nazism. The "isms" ARE religions in their own right. Tarring perfectly law-abiding people who just don't happen to believe in a higher power with those brushes is deceitful on top of being just logically wrong-headed. So as not to tax the patience of the other denizens here, kindly email me on the side. We still have a lot to discuss.
by sectarianism, I assume you mean the power of one denomination to influence power over govt.
I dont believe there is any danger of that, but any political pendulum can swing too far one direction or another, and I suppose we all fear the extremists on one side or another.
my concern is that a complete removal of moral self restraint (as we are no doubt experiencing in this country) will lead to behavior you and I can only imagine. (note the position in recent years where child pedophylia is recieving some degree of tolerance by psychologists and judges). the founders said all of this would happen if moral and religious restraints were removed from a culture. I wont go into all of the quotes that Washington, Adams, wm patterson, patrick henry, robt Winthrop and so many others, which makes quite clearly the belief that moral religious principles were necessary to building good character in citizens. I urge you to contact any good teacher or Prof. as I have named here before to ask the question, 'were our laws founded upon the Bible and Ten Commandments? Did the founders consider our laws to be subordinate to the laws of God, as provided for in the 'Declaration', Blackstone's commentaries on common law?
Cubiclegrrl, the issue is this. either we will have a culture (or a syndrome), which is based on worshiping man's knowledge and ability to evolve into something better, where rational thought is all there is, and love is just a dumb emotion, an accidental mutation of our psche, or we believe in something larger than ourselves, where self sacrifice and putting the welfare of others ahead of ourselves is the goal we try to achieve, no matter how short we may fall from it.
someone mentioned earlier they couldnt understand why anyone would worship God so much. Worshipping God puts us in, as toni robbins says, 'an attitude of gratitude'. it is why someone living in the worst of conditions and filth can still find joy and gratitude in living. have you ever read 'a day in the life of Ivan Denisovich'?
for years, we have all been taught to think that millions of people have been murdered in the name of Christ. it may have been people claiming to be christians, but they were not practicing 'Christ like behavior', and why have these same people failed to note that the greatest mass murderer in all of history (joe stalin), died less than 60 years ago, at the helm of the greatest leftist government in history?
when you look at world history, this nation has been for 200 years the greatest hope for liberty and freedom and hope itself. and when you attempt to discover why, you cannot overlook the strong moral and religious principles upon which we were founded and survived for so long. maybe this is why so many secular educators insist on censoring our history.....
what say you? Charley
for almost 200 years, pornography never recieved first amendment protection, then 40 years ago, it became an essential component in the protection of our first amendment. the founders understood the first amendment to be about the protection of ideas. now their ideas have been censored, and larry flynt and bill clinton are our heroes. how upside down can a country and culture can become without a moral compass?
in a relative world, even the truth loses its value. in a realtive world, how do we condemn any behavior? who is to judge?
Hiya charley.
Still waiting on an actual investigation report into Columbine which says the motive was anti-christian.
What were the names of the two profs at ESU that confimred your interpretation of the founding as christian? What questions did you ask them, and what were their responses?
Which of the 118 versions of the second law of thermodynamics you linked me to is the one which you think disproves evolution-and why?(note: math will be required)
"for almost 200 years, pornography never recieved first amendment protection, then 40 years ago, it became an essential component in the protection of our first amendment. the founders understood the first amendment to be about the protection of ideas."
Interesting. In what way is pornography not an idea? And by the way, "speech" is not an idea, it is an expression of an idea. Ideas inside your skull can not be controlled by government. So the First refers to their expression in the world. So, how is it that pornography is not the expression of an idea?
Charley: No, by sectarianism, I also mean something akin to what's going on Iraq right now as well as what you think I mean. You might not have noticed above, but I never argued that the FFs didn't generally hew to some flavor of Christianity. But they also didn't believe in giving women the vote, and some of them had no problem owning slaves or even fathering children on them. The FF's genius was not their belief in a Creator, but rather their humility in recognizing that theirs would not be the last word on anything--hence the Constitution was left open to amendment. Had they believed that they were the sole interpreters of God's word, they would not have done so. But they recognized that times and value-systems changed. If you would emulate them in any one respect, I wish that it would be to show a similar recognition. Yet you persist in making religion (in particular your own) the basis of all morals and assuming that secularism is the outlet for the dark side of human nature--and seeminly have elevated it to the level of a conspiracy. Kindly email me to continue this discussion at cubiclegrrl@yahoo.com. We still have much to argue. Trust me, I'm not in cahoots with your bogeymen Bill or Larry.
yes Jefferson did have a problem keeping his shirttail tucked in, but he wasnt one of our most noble founders either.
and the FF's did provide a means for amending the Constitution, I only wish to see our nation return to that process, and away from the usurption of power and tyranny by the Federal Judiciary, which has decided to amend it on their own.
Jefferson hated the usurptions of power by the Supreme Court, and said that "if it were to continue everyman should lift up his voice, and more, should raise an arm".
by definition, secularism is anti-religious, and for that reason many of us (and the founders) do see it as dangerous. there may be religious groups in this nation who want to overthrow or run govt. (the nut from topeka comes to mind), but I really dont see them when I look around at Christian groups. quite the contrary, christians wish only to preserve our institutions, like marriage and family, and defend this government.
I do see Christians who want to preserve the ability of christians to influence government for good. the founders certainly believed this. but while they did not want a powerful church or denomination influencing government, they did want people to be influenced by judeo-christian principles to build their character, and that this would be the best protection for preserving our self government and freedoms.
I will send you an email soon..
Dale- can you really not distinguish between a valid idea and pornagraphy? I know we are close to losing the ability to tell the difference in this nation. a few years ago the NEA awarded a woman 70K for displaying a glass Jar with her chopped up aborted remains inside. she called it art. the NEA called it art. I dont know what planet they are from, but I am sure there are fellow space travelors who agree with them.
charley-how is pornography not the expression of an idea? We can debate whether or not it's an allowable expression once you have answered that question. And you might want to reconsider whether or not you really want a government deciding what is and is not "valid." After all, I can easily see some politicians deciding that, oh, I don't know, maybe the idea that politicians can be wrong is an idea that isn't valid.
And in case you missed them, these questions still stand as well:
"Still waiting on an actual investigation report into Columbine which says the motive was anti-christian.
What were the names of the two profs at ESU that confimred your interpretation of the founding as christian? What questions did you ask them, and what were their responses?
Which of the 118 versions of the second law of thermodynamics you linked me to is the one which you think disproves evolution-and why?(note: math will be required)
Dale Austin | Homepage | 08.08.06 - 9:08 am | #"
Dale- its all symantics? up until 40+ years ago, the courts (and the ff's), understood the pornography to have no 1st amendment protection. the first amendment was about the protection of ideas. yes, Bill Clinton thinking dirty thoughts about his Sec. of State, is an idea of sorts, but what dinosaurs like me and the FF's were thinking of (another idea), were political ideas, thoughts about self govt, etc. A world where thoughts about pornography, self degradation, or bad behavior were not sanctioned with the term 'idea'.
however, technically, you are right.
secondly, columbine.. I have heard reports that what Cassie said is true, and some that say it is not true. you may or may not be right on this point. on the second law of thermodynamics. you got me there. but doesnt it imply that things are becoming more disorganized? isnt it a fact that mutations, when they occur, result in an inferior product? that DNA is more corrupt than it was 100 years ago?
what I do know..
our nation's laws were founded upon the bible and the ten commandments, and all of our laws were subordinate to the 'laws of God'. Blackstone's commentaries, law schools, etc.
Washington said that our strongest supports were morality and religion and that we would not have a moral nation without religion.
and I know that all of these facts are essential to any educated understanding of our nation. And I know that these facts are censored in public schools....best wishes..
Charley;
Thanks for the reply. I just checked my copy of the constitution and couldn't find anywhere in the first that "valid" was written in in invisible ink. And that is the problem. We, as a society, can't decide on what is a valid idea if we don't get to talk about it. (Bill Clinton's thought processes are irrelevant, and are simply a red herrring in this discusssion-again, thought is not covered, only expression) It seems that you are proposing two classes of ideas, "valid" and "invalid", but propose no test for the distinction. Any test you propose should not rely on the content of the idea. You could, for instance, argue effect-the famous "you have no right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" exception to free speech. But that might require some actual evidence-the kind that would stand up in court (scientific evidence would have an even higher standard-even in the fuzzies llike sociology).
Your goalposts are moving. First you seemed to be saying that the first protected ideas, and that porn wasn't an idea. Then, you seemed to agree that it was an idea, but not a "valid" one. Now, you seem to want to argue that only "political" ideas are covered. (correct me if I'm wrong on that) If this last is the case, would you, for instance, consider speech on the topic of the Trinity to be political? If it's not, then you open the doors to a government deciding what is and is not religious orthodxy-oh joy. Think it hasn't happened? If yes, I sugggest a course in the history of places other than the US. A starting point might be to Google "annabaptist martyrs"-a group I am descended from no less.
Regarding: "secondly, columbine.. I have heard reports that what Cassie said is true, and some that say it is not true. you may or may not be right on this point." The question I asked was whether or not you could produce an investagion document which said the motive was anti-christian. The answer, it is clear, is no. (oh, yeah-"I have heard reports" is as convincing as "some Democrats might say" coming from a pundit. I've read a bunch of them too. Crap, as far as I can tell)
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics-do you believe it invalidates evolution or not? Seems to me you're dodging the question.
And finally: What were the names of the two profs at ESU that confirmed your interpretation of the founding as christian? What questions did you ask them, and what were their responses?
faxing guaranteed loan no payday faxing guaranteed loan no payday faxing guaranteed loan no payday. alaska cash loan quick alaska cash loan quick alaska cash loan quick.
Commenting by HaloScan
