Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

My graduate studies in history concentrated on the Five Civilized Tribes, specificaly the Choctaw nation after removal from Missississippi-Alabama-Tennessee to what is now eastern Oklahoma, and very specifically on two bilingual Choctaw newspapers that published in 1849-1852 here in a town that no longer exists.

The editors, Choctaws educated by Christian missionaries, wrote about the concepts of "nationhood" versus "government some, as well as the role of religion in society.

Plus, I grew up in the Cherokee Nation's jurisdiction in eastern Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has members all over the country, as do all the Five Civilized Tribes; their governments are in Oklahoma.

So, for me, it's easy to separate a nation from its government.

Oh, and what's going on in the desert Southwest right now, with the border problem?

The NATION of Mexico is crossing the border held by the GOVERNMENT of the United States. Various fifth columns in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and maybe even Texas, are going to let it keep happening until, I believe, the governments of Mexico and the United States redraw some boundaries to reflect the national changes.

Sobering: In a grad seminar on Latin American history, the last place we talked about, as part of Latin America? The United States.

--ER
 

Apparently, I will get nothing done this morning.

Pastor Tim, that is the first time I have ever heard somebody argue that our system of government was founded on a Biblical standard. With all due respect, that is delusional thinking.

The border problem is a tangled mess of politics. As ER has stated, the nation of Mexico is violating the sovereignty of the US Governement. The Mexican Government even encourages this violation, going so far as to provide a pamphlet to help its citizens cross illegaly into California (I used to have the link to the Mexican Government's on-line pamphlet, but it is no longer where it was). If these illegal aliens were carrying rifles, I doubt too much fuss would be made over the US asserting its right to defend its borders. Because the people are unarmed and 'just looking for a better life', the practice of illegal entry into the United States is tolerated. It may be an unarmed invasion, but it is an invasion never-the-less.

Redrawing borders is not necesssary, nor would it be acceptable to a majority of the United States of America (its citizens, and its elected officials). Border security must be established and illegals removed.

History will record that the US allowed Mexico to peacefully invade and usurp its sovereignty. If groups like the Minute Man Project grow and take control of the border situation bereft of government support, then history will read differently. It will talk of a dysfunctional government that sat on the sidelines whilst its citizens protected them.
 

Spain currently faces a very different, yet similar crisis.
 

By Fiat of the Supreeme Court are we not a "christian" nation?
My previous post on "The Establishment Clause" which is actually in the constitution as "an establishment" clause was dismissed as semantics. Did I run it by you guys too fast? Is "an apple barrel" the same as "the apple barrel". If the constitution isn't sematics then what is it written in?
Now here is the deal. When the Supreme Court renamed the First Amendment as "THE" establishment clause they did so in order to Make Laws regarding Religion. Before that bit of judcial activism, which I think was in 1947, Congress was forbidden to make any law regarding "AN" establisment of Religion. But after that, effectively they changed it into the concept that Congress shall make no laws regarding "THE" establisment of Religion. And labled the whole concept
"THE Estblishment Clause". Damn neat turn. Now how can they keep this in play? Well one slick thing about the law is that before you get to the basic "law" you have wander back down throught the legal presidences interpreting the law that have come after that law. When you do that with the First Amendment, there is detour sign when you get to 1947 that takes you slightly off track and leads you to a dead end. The lawyers now get lost in the details of their case and the law grow dusty and dim from never being looked at except through the glass darkly of "presidence".
Now to the point. Prior to the hi-jacking of the first Amendment. We weren't a Christian Nation, we were by design a 'Theist Nation' born of the Enlightenment Movements and Philosophies of the 18th Century Europe tranfered into the new American thinking by Brittish intellectuals ( what else were Jerferson et. al. but Brittish intellectuals). Soon after 1947 we became a "Christian" Nation by fiat of the Supreme Court's judicail activism.
So boys and girls, dudes and dudites, Our wall seperating the Church and the State is no longer there.
The original wall has been breeched. Can it be re-established? Should it be re-established? Will a strict constructionist Chief Justice do it or be turned at the detour.
If it is not repaired, then what will crawl through it? Will we be ready for it?
Dismissed again?
Matt-7-6
soouueee, peace be with you all
 

Pasdtor Timothy, re:
"federal representative system found in the Bible ..."

What in THE sam hill are you talking about??

Joo git an Em Div from Bob Jones U?? :-)

WHAT biblical federal system are you talking about, and how is it you figger a bunch of Separatists who were RUNNING away from a state church were ... ow ow ow, my head hurts!

More, please. I'm flummoxed. Feel free to defend slavery, too, since it is "found in the Bible" and was an important part of the early days of this republic, both north and south.

--ER
 

Re, "Redrawing borders is not necesssary, nor would it be acceptable to a majority of the United States of America (its citizens, and its elected officials) ..."

What I'm saying is that a majority of some states, New Mexico probably, first, WILL find Mexican nationhood acceptable, and will craft government to match it. Then you got you a real state's rights issue, deja Confederate vu all over again. Los Confederados! Quoting Jefferson Davis! En Mexicano!

--ER
 

Good stuff, Drlobojo. I have "Jefferson's Bible" on my nightstand. It may floor some Christian nationalists to learn that the good desit Jefferson personally stripped the Bible of all but what the scholars of the day believed to have been Jesus's actual words, then strung them all together choronologically. He wanted to get at the essence of the message of the Prince of Peace.

How DARE HE!?!

Feh.

--ER
 

IRAQ has way similar nationality problems, as well, especially the Kurds, which straddle northern Iraq and Pakisdtan, if I'm not mistaken.

Uncle Drlobojo, you do know more about this stuff than I do.

Splain why it will literally take a Miracle of God of the Highest Order for Iraq to cohere as one "nation." :-)

--ER
 

Tim, that's just wack. (sp?)

Reminds me of an English philospher-historian I studied, though. .... Buckles? Dang it. Can't recall ... No, wait, French dude? Hmmm ...
 

Where does Eve fit into this construction?
 

I can’t believe you’ve resorted to terroristic threatening.
 

We are too diverse as a nation to say we are "this" or we are "that".

If we are a "Christian Nation", then what will we do with the Buddhists, the Pagans, the Muslims, the Hindus, the agnostics, the atheists and all the other varieties of religion or no religion?

I'd have to say that our government and its policies follows few, if any, Christian principles (there's a lot of talk but little action if you take my meaning).

A majority of people in this country espouse Christian virtues, but if you call us a "Christian nation", you throw out the diversity which is one of the things that gives us our character.
 

ER, I am not versed with the regional politics of the Southwestern US, and so I will defer to you. I still cannot imagine a member state of the United States of America giving up a part of its sovereignty to Mexico. But as you say, if it did happen, States' Rights would move front and center.

Dr. Lobojo, maybe you are going too fast for this ole country boy to keep up. Can you provide me with some specific references (preferably on-line, but I have been known to wander into the library from time to time)? It all still sounds like semantics to me. Semantics that at first glance I would normally dismiss. Obviously I am missing something deeper and this piques my interest and curiosity.
 

Wait. A. Minute.

You are saying Adam was our representative, and Jesus, as the second Adam, is our representative.

And you allow as how those who don't accept Jesus have no representative.

Explain how Adam is our representative? When did we ever have any choice about accepting Adam in that role? Adam was God's creation. There was no person before Adam, then Eve. From them flowed all mankind, right? (If we accept the story of Genesis.)

And on top of that, you are comparing a religious patricarchy to modern governmental structure?

We do not live in a patriarchy, Timothy. In a representative government, the representative serves at the pleasure of those who elect her/him.

Let me go check my calendar now... I thought it was 2005.

And by the by ...

We are complex creatures. We can be Christians, or non-Christians, as well as U.S. citizens, Canadians, or citizens of Mexico. Just as we can be daughters, mothers, grandmothers and sisters. Or brothers, fathers, nephews, husbands.
Being any one of those things doesn't automatically assign us another role, nor does it preclude another role.

It's kinda like that cliche from the 1970s -- a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

An American without a religion is like a dog without a car. A Christian without an American flag is like ... well, think up your own nonsequiteur.

The two things are independent human qualities.
 

Er, as per your request:
Now the following graphic lanuage is used to impart the serious nature of the feelings held by the parties concerned and respreasent no racial concepts held by the commentator.
The Shia's think the Sunni's are Niggers and the Sunni's think the Shia's are Damn Niggers. The split between these two religions in the world Of Islam is as great as the split between the jews and christian in the interpretation of God. They have a Holy duty to kill each other as heritics. The Kurds see the Shia and the Sunni as God Damn Niggers and don't care to have to assciated with them at all. The Kurds are focused on re-establishing thier Nation (over taken by the Turkmen Empire and cut up by the Brits after WWI) by combining Kurdish Iraq with Kurdish Turkey and Kurdistan formerly of the USSR. The Federal Iraqi government is a simply a stepping stone to their final goal.
Thus the Kurds are destined to be attacked by Turkey, and or a Russian back Kurdistan, when they try unification. The Shia will be drawn towards Jordan and Syria who are their blood kin and the Sunni will be drawn toward Iran who are their blood kin. Iran doesn't just nned the a-bomb to cinerize Israel, it will blow those Shia up and hold Mecca and Medina as it own. Iraq is to the middle east as the Balkans are to Europe. Now that's a two cent lecture on a million dollar problem.
We are damn idiots for getting involved in a lose lose lose war, even if we did need need the oil.
This is the modern tower of Babel.
Babaylon, my Babaylon......
P.S. It has stopped raining her, I off to hunt arrowheads.
 

Pastor Tim, I meant no disrepect. Perhaps 'delusional' was too strong a word. I apologize. I have to side with ER, though. To stretch the interpretation of 'the Body of Christ' to form the foundation for the federal government of the USA is too much for me.
 

Where Mary Magdalene (sp) in this body of Chirst construct of federalism?
OK, now I will stop and go hunt arrowheads.
 

Rem870, it is semantics but semantics should not be dismissed. That is how societies turn.
Without leading you down the path I have followed let me just suggest that you look at the official Bill of Rights say from the House Gov. site. Pay attention to the pre-amble. Then Google, "the establishment clause" history, and see what you find of interest. Then go back to my word substitution posting and insert some of your own nouns and think about it or better yet try it out on some virgin to this blog and see how they interpret it. As a compulsive "teacher" I am loath to tell and declare my position , I would rather show it.
It takes longer that way but it soaks in deeper. Have fun.
 

Tim, you blow my mind.

It was Jean Bodin you thinking reminded me of. From a "busy work" kind of paper I did in 2002:

Jean Bodin was born in 1529 or 1530 in Angers, France, and lived during the violence and upheaval of the wars between the Catholics and Huguenots – a time when governments were challenged to maintain order and systems of government were being called into question. He was among the Renaissance historians who meant to break from “fanciful” and “ill-founded” medieval historiography. He saw himself as a jurist in the humanist tradition.

Bodin, a political scholar, lawyer and writer, sought to “ascertain” universal law by attempting to “apprehend” universal history – to determine “what experience had shown to be the best and most enduring forms of law.” ...

To Bodin is attributed a scholarly break from the accepted “Four Empires” outline of world history, which had it roots in the prophecies of Daniel -- the empires being those of the ungodly Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and Macedonians and the Romans, to be succeeded by a fifth “empire” that would establish God’s righteousness on earth. Bodin adhered to Scripture, especially the Old Testament. ...


... In his "Methodus," he emphasized the study of forms of government. He wrote: “In history the best part of universal law lies hidden; and what is of great importance for the appraisal of laws – the customs of peoples, and the beginnings, growth, conditions, changes and decline of all states – are obtained from it. The chief subject matter of this Method consists of these facts, since nothing is more rewarding in the study of history than what is learnt about the government of states.”

The Methodus was considered one of Bodin’s most influential works. His other was the "Republique," or The Six Books of the Commonwealth.

In the Republique, he defined the commonwealth – in the first sentence, then expounded the idea throughout the Six Books -- and explained his concept of sovereignty.

Bodin, an apologist for hereditary monarchy, saw the commonwealth as “the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, by a sovereign power.”

By “family,” he meant households with a father having absolute paternalistic power, under the laws of nature and God, over his wife, sons and daughters, and servants and slaves.

By “sovereign power,” he meant the power resultant from the conquest of one group of families over another, subject to no human law, but only to the laws of God and nature, and best expressed in a monarchy.

A commonwealth’s purpose: “to cultivate man’s welfare” and “to maintain order” through “absolute and inalienable sovereignty.”

How? With a sovereign who “acts as an instrument of divine and natural law.”

Bodin found it expedient, but not necessary, for the sovereign to act upon advice of a senate or council and to give rights of jurisdiction to a magistracy, or system to administer and judge the law.

He saw sovereignty expressed three ways in history: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

He wrote: “A state cannot fail to prosper where the sovereign retains those rights proper to his majesty, the senate preserves its authority, the magistrates exercise their legitimate powers, and justice runs its ordinary course.”

--ER
 

All I meant was that your discussion of paternalism and patriarchy reminded me of Bodin and his concept of family, especially in a monarchy.

Sounds to me like you'd just flat be happier with a state church and a king at the head of government, and a house of commons to represent the people and a house of lords to represent royalty. Hey, that sounds familiar ... :-)

--ER
 

What's so difficult to grasp about religion being a private choice and government being a public entity?
I mean, I know I'm being reductive and everything but that's exactly what the difference is.
And of course, I gotta go on record as saying that if we really based the tenets of our government on bronze age kingdoms, we're all screwed.
 

I'm not really following the comment threads, because they're growing increasingly frustrating to me, but obviously the nation, as political entity, is secular--or, if you will, agnostic. Separation of church and state is written into the constitution precisely *because*, at the time of its founding, America already had a history of precisely the kind of people who *now* want to argue for a state religion--fundamentalists, dissenters, protestant charismatics, etc--being *oppressed* by state religion, and so *they* wanted to keep church and state separate. As, of course, did the founding fathers, for different reasons ranging from deism to agnosticism to enlightenment secular political theory.

We are a "christian nation" in a casual and semi-historical sense, of course, but that's not at all the same thing. It's the difference between the state as a political entity (secular) and the nation as a historic imagined community (mostly christian, of different stripes). And it's trying to turn the latter into the former that many people are resisting, because the nation wasn't founded as a theocracy, we don't wish to live in a theocracy, and because establishing a theocracy runs counter to other deeply ingrained aspects of the historic imagined identity, "American."
 

Rather than a "Christian" nation, we were a nation founded by those who were seeking freedom in many forms. Many of the founders were seeking religious freedom. There were other causes as well. Many founders were religious, in a Christian tradition of some sort.

However, look at the form of religion that was practiced. Yes, some of those early practices were the predecessor of some of today's practices. But they, too, have changed. I dare say there were no Southern Baptists on the Mayflower.
Pick a denomination on any street corner today -- you'll be able to trace it back to some degree, but with changes.

There are some things government and religion have in common. Among them, the fact that they are everlasting and ever-changing.

And because of that, the two cannot be united, because often the changes in one is at odds with the other, and the two institutions change at different paces for different purposes.

When the nation was founded, dignity of death issues had nothing to do with Terry Schiavo. More likely it had to do with the young women who were burned at the stake because they were suspected of being witches.

Changes in religious practice, changes in government. Both happen because there are dynamic changes in human beings and societies made up of human beings.

Let the one be what it is and don't mix it with the other. They are separate and should remain so.Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God what is God's.
 

And let me beat Pastor Timothy to it... the triune God is Alpha and Omega, everlasting, never changing.

The practice of religion is not.
 

Right on, Bitch! Although some people will stumbled over your accurate use of "imagined." (Whut? Do yew mean it's ALL MADE UP!?!") Which, of course, in an extremely complicated sense, is what you did mean, I think, and I agree.

But whaddays mean, the thread is increasingly frustrating? Of course it is! This here is the Erusdite Redneck Roadhouse of Ideas Great, Small and In Between. ;-)

Right on, Trixie! Just right on. But the "nation" in the sense some of us are talking about was almost a byproduct of the various histories that the founders and settlers -- to this day -- brought with them. The government, on the other hand, was deliberately created.

--ER
 

Some people worship a quadraphonic God, though: Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- and Bible.

I love the way the crazy lefty church I'm going to puts it:

"We believe that what Jesus teaches us about God is more important than what the church has taught us about Jesus. We believe in the liberty of of conscience, the responsibility of every believer to work out his or her own salvation, and the obligation of faithful men and women to become partners with God in building the kingdom. We take the Bible seriously, not literally ..."

I especially love the very first sentence and thew very last sentence.

And dadGUM this beats working -- even counting the crawling under the sink, the trip to Ace, the fixing of a pipe, the hoeing out of a budding colony of m-o-l-d, the scraping of a shelf liner, the cleaning, the cleaning, the cleaning, the hand-washing of every recoverable items from under said sink, the doing of laundry related thereto, and the installing of a new liner. I really was meant to actually work for a living, and to think on the side.

-ER
 

And here, dear friends, is an example of what becomes of a country that forgets/bans Christ:



Fri 30 Sep 2005



printer friendly email article
Dutch to allow infant euthanasia

TOBY STERLING
IN AMSTERDAM


THE Dutch government intends to expand its current euthanasia policy, setting guidelines for when doctors may end the lives of terminally ill newborn babies with the parents' consent.

A letter outlining the directives is expected to be submitted to parliament for discussion by mid-October.


The new policy will not require a change of law, a health ministry spokeswoman said yesterday. But the guidelines are likely to spark an outcry from the Vatican, right-to-life proponents and some advocacy groups for the handicapped. Currently, adult euthanasia is allowed if the patient requests it and if certain conditions are met.

The change could set a precedent for how the Dutch will treat other cases in which patients are unable to say whether they want to live or die, such as the mentally challenged or elderly people with dementia.

The governing conservative Christian Democrats - the majority of whom fought legalisation for euthanasia in 2001 when they were in the opposition - are now expected to embrace the guidelines drawn up last year by doctors at the Groningen University Medical Centre.

Under the protocol, euthanasia would be permissible when a child is terminally ill with no prospect of recovery, when it is suffering great pain, when two sets of doctors agree the situation is hopeless and when parents give their consent.

Johannes Verheijden, a spokesman for the group BOSK, which represents parents of children with handicaps, said the changes were morally wrong and unnecessary. "There is no need for a doctor to play an active role in death. The focus should be on easing pain," he said.

On the surface it seems a fine and good thing, the child is in great pain with no hope of getting any better, let us give it an easy journey into the hereafter. But where will it end? This child has brown eyes and we wanted blue. Oh well, we'll put this one down and make another.

Hey ER, after the hurricane you were carrying on about throwing yourself at the feet of the Redeemer, but here you are taking up for the most anti-Christian group on this country, what gives?
 

Good-bye cruel world. Going in to change shirts, before runnin' to pick up a check at work, I casually tossed my hat on the bed. Bad cowboy luck! Never put yer hat on a bed. (Granted it was a gimme cap, picked up last summer in Wyoming, that says "Wyoming" across the front. But still.)

Texas Bix Bender writes in HATS AND THE COWBOYS WHO WEAR THEM, 1994, Gibbs-Smith: “Seems the expression comes from way back when people believed in evil spirits – other than the ones you drink. These evil spirits lived in the hair. This probably came from static electricity in the air crackling and popping when you came in and took off your hat. So, the idea was, don’t lay your hat where you’re gonna lay your head ‘cause evil spirits are spilling outta the hat. It doesn’t make any sense. But then, superstitions seldom do.”

I got a glimpse of a comment, which I will read carefully later, wonderin' how I could throw myself at the foot of the Cross a few weeks ago, and take up for the "anti-Christian" ACLU.

If I thought the ACLU was "anti-Christian, there would be a conflict. But I don't, and so there's not. The link to the left for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is there for a reason. And B, in yesterday's post, gave some easy-to-find links of the ACLU going to bat for Christians. So ... there ya go.

--ER
 

Oh, and in re. Pastor Timothy's thing about Adam as representative:

Ironically, that argument was foundational to the old theory of the Divine Right of Kings, as set forth by James I and, rather famously, Robert Filmer (see his _Patriarcha_). John Locke's Two Treatises of Government was largely a response to Filmer's Patriarcha, arguing that (1) the lineage from Adam, if it had ever existed, was now irretrievably lost, and that no monarch could claim it; (2) history clearly showed that monarchs achieved power through force, and that hereditary right existed to perpetuate that power (until someone else forced themselves into power); and most importantly, (3) that we were all created fundamentally as equals, in the state of nature; therefore it followed that (4) government was created as a *compact* between equal individuals, primarily for the protection of private property. Locke's ideas, of course, were *central* to the founding of the US and the ideas in its Constitution (although there are also some very interesting arguments about similarities beteween the Constitution and Iroquois law in the period).

In other words, the political, philosophical, and ideological history of the U.S. was in fact born out of an *opposition* to the whole "Adam as our representative" argument that Pastor Timothy is putting forth.
 

Désolé, HEU. Je me sens comme je commençais unrising quelques semaines en arrière quand j'ai pris pour George Buisson. Les anons ont sorti de dessous chaque roche et endroit foncé. Je vraiment l'ai manqué hier quand j'étais hors de ville. Elle est étée vraie.
 

"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - G.K. Chesterfield.
 

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." Can you find a better description of the ACLU?
 

To the Dutch thing. I don't think God is missing from U.S. culture OR government. Anyone who seriously does is living in fear of something that is not so, and never will be.

If that's French up there, this is the best babelfish can do with it!

Afflicted, HEU. I feel as I began unrising behind a few weeks when I took for George Buisson. The haddocks left lower part each rock and dark place. I really missed it yesterday when I was out of city. It is étée true.

DO WHAT? Better translation? Anyone?

--ER
 

And following is a much better summary of what the ACLU is about. From the ACLU (gasp!)! I'm missing the anti-Christian plank:

THE ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.


--ER
 

"ONE MAY SMILE, AND SMILE, AND SMILE AGAIN, AND STILL BE A VILLAIN "

ER,IF THE FRICKIN' ACLU IS OUT TO UNDERMIND THIS COUNTRY AND CHRISTIANITY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GONNA PUT IT ON A BILL-BOARD FOR ALL TO SEE? NOT MANY FIFTH COLUMNS ARE UPFRONT ABOUT THEIR GOALS. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
 

Just because an organization like the ACLU may help me as a Christian sometimes doesn't mean they are good. Their stand on defending those who make child pornography and that man-boy group I think its nambla or something like that, tells me that no amount of good can make up for defending the likes of those perversions.

And don't say that if these perverted child predators are not given the right to do what they want then that opens the door to take away our freedoms.......utter hogwash! If my freedom depends on letting others destroy yours or my children then take it away my friend.
 

If the ACLU is a fifth column, who is it a fifth column for? Communism is dead; Castro just doesn't know it yet. Chavez, in Venezuela? He's a leftist-socialist, not a communist -- and there is a difference. Besides, he has more practical reasons to be anti-Bush: Bush is anti-Chavez.

So, who is it that the ACLU is secretly supporting?

--ER
 

Kris, the feel free to oppose the ACLU. But consider:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

FREEDOM. OF. SPEECH. ALWAYS.

It has come up a cloud. Lightning abounds. Over and out.

--ER
 

ER,
I absolutely do not care what they have defended that is right in my eyes or yours. They have defended the right for people to exploit our children for perversion. No document(which I don;t believe our constitution allows this) or freedom is worth sacrificing our children for. I can't believe anyone can overlook this and support this group or participate in it.
Saying that they don't support what they do but defend the right for them to do it and publish detestable photos of children who have been damaged, some eternally, is a cop out. When we defend this we support it there is no other way to put it.

I'm done.
 

Murder is illegal.
Sexual abuse of children is illegal.
TALKING about murder or sexual abuse is NOT illegal.
Speech is not the same as action.
 

This is getting depressing.
We have been manipulated into this, never forget.
We used to just deal with the issues affecting our communities, and how we as a community deal with them.
Now, we are faced with a highly focus-marketed scheme that targets all of us as an ideological demographic.
A big part of it (check Maness's blog, today) is the endless whining about how whoever the opposition is is always the ones who are attacking people in lieu of issues, until that particular phase of the moon that makes it okay and godlike for them to do so. Then they turn around and ask again for forgiveness, and wonder aloud why we engage in such vituperation. This is followed by more character assassination of the dumbest sort.
Unfortunately, this is now accepted as part of the game.
So why do we elect to have this shit done to us, again and again? Are we that fucking stupid? Why do we tell ourselves that shitbags like whoever-that-anonymous-coward-is have a right to say that all members of the ACLU should be shot dead are not themselves worthy of violent retribution?
I'm saying, either we have armed camps, or we come around to accepting that all our destinies are somewhat (oh hell, let's not lie)- entirely intertwined, and just because these bastards want our money, that doesn't mean we should spend all our meaningless, worthless time on this corner of the internet arguing about it.
So yeah, I'll be the one to say it: hate the ACLU? Fine, ya' bastard. If ever hate speech is unpopular in this country, you'll wish they were there. But you won't have to worry about that.
For a moment though: Imagine if your childish, bullshit views on speech weren't the mainstream, majority views of most of your uneducated types: you'd wish like hell that maybe there was someone looking out for you in this society that in theory protects free speech.
Oh, and make sure to day 'god bless' every time you speak hatred, ya' chillen'.
 

I owe ya' on that last one, Press. I know ya' don't like that particular word that everyone uses in the common vernacular of this language that begins with the letter F.
Since it is a bad word.
 

But I think the point is that in Christian circles, we get the impression that we are being locked out of the debate because we are Christians. The atmosphere seems to be one of "freedom from Christianity."

Well, I understand that that impression exists; the other side of it is the impression that, as I said, some Christians are arguing for theocracy--that U.S. law should be based on Christian principles (and as you point out, different Christians interpret those differently). This is deeply threatening to those who are not Christian (even those who are, but not in the sense that the politically active religious right is Christian), to those who are agnostic or athiest, to those who prefer a secular government (for reasons we've already covered in this thread), and so forth. So a lot of the hostility that gets directed at "political Christians" (or whatever) is directed, not at Christianity as such, but at the politically active religious right specifically, *as* a political entity. E.g., arguments that intelligent design should be taught in biology, that the government should be pro-life (a position that, ultimately, is a religious belief), increasing suspicion of the ACLU, American policy in Israel, etc. When you have pastors saying things like "our job is to reclaim America for Christ," and organizations like the Christian Coalition actively functioning as political wings of the Republican party, the line between America as "Christian nation" in the historical sense and America as "Christian nation" in the political sense is deliberately being blurred. I mean, I take your own declaration that you will vote Republican as an implicit statement that you will do so *because* you are a Christian, that somehow "Republican" = "Christian." And if it's not what you mean, it certainly seems to be what a lot of people mean (and what a lot of politicians, from Bush to Pat Robertson, what people to mean). That's a deeply troubling idea to those of us who think that we should *not* be pursuing theocracy. When "liberal" has become a dirty word, and people equate "Democrat" with "liberal" with "godless" with "hating Christians," then politics is getting reinterpreted along religious grounds; not only are those who aren't Republican literally being demonized, but it certainly looks from here as if some Christians are arguing for theocracy, or for something very like it.
 

Fifty! Fifty comments! Yayyyy!
Take THAT, forty-nine!
 

" what a lot of politicians, from Bush to Pat Robertson, WANT people to mean"

sorry, typo.

I also agree with what Rich is saying--we need to try not to get caught up in these big-picture culture wars, because really, what connects us is stronger, in the end, than what divides us. The local, specific, and material is a far better grounding for political action than vague abstractions.

And Kris, the ACLU has never, not once, fought to defend the exploitation of children.
 

Awright. Fifty one. Beach Feed got in there in the few moments between my one thing and my other thing.
And she's right. I'm sorry that the believing folks don't see this one, but we see you as killers of non-believers, historically, and don't thing you wouldn't do it again, based on your recent rhetoric.
So even if the ACLU honestly hated you (which I don't think it does), I'd still want them on my side. As I've said, I don't believe that Christianity has ever been in any real danger of being erased from the planet; a surprise, considering what you sometimes hear.
 

No, it's not illegal to talk about sexually abusing children. It's not illegal to advocate sexual abuse of children as NAMBA does. But it's evil.

Evil, you bastards. There is good and evil in this world. It's not all words and politics and crap. It's real people and real children who are suffering while you argue and pat yourselves on the back for being so enlightened.

And none of you -- not a single college educated, phd holding, journalistic, holier than thou sons of bitches, not one of you unless you've been abused too -- have any right to protect them or even pretend that you support their right to advocate it. And if you think you do, if you're so high up in your lofty ivory tower, you can go straight to hell.
 

Uh oh, Spaghet-ee-o! A door has, unintentionally, been opened.

I guaran-damn-tee ya that some of those who have contributed to this thread have, in fact, been abused sexually as children. So, try again.

That's not what the ACLU defended, it's not what I'm defending. So, take that fight somewhere else.

Besides that, this thread isn't about any of that. It's about the difference -- and thre balance -- between a Christian nation and a secular government.

Pay attention, people!

For example: The Christian church has murdered in Jesus name -- and for God's sake don't ask me to prove that white is white. See the Crusades. See Manifest Destiny. See attacks on American Indian lands, lifeways, folkways and culture that persist to this day. See a damn encyclopedia.

Don't fire the rhetorical gun filled with "Evil! Evil!" bullets. Because THAT bread, cast upon the water, will come back tenfold and get you in the ass.

--ER
 

ER, you well know that just because someone claims to be Christian, it doesn't mean they really are.

The Rev. Fred Phelps claims to be Christian. Do you think he is?

I don't.

Yes, people who claimed to be Christian killed people in the Name of Christ. The Crusades and the Inquisition to name a couple.

But who said they were true Christians? The Catholic Church?

Being raised in a Christian Church or a Christian family doesn't make one a Christian any more than being raised in a garage makes one a car.

It isn't fair to Christians to make the argument that people were killed by Christians. And you know it.
 

You insist on saying that Amwrica wasn't founded as a Christian nation?

Let's ask them.

"The belief in God All Powerful, wise and good, is essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man." James Madison, fourth president of the U.S.

"If we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality.... no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity." statesman Daniel Webster

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil Constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evil which men suffer from vice, crime, ambitions, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster

" We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. From the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come." Samuel Adams

"We have all been encouraged to feel the guardianship and guidance of the Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of Nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future." James Madison, in his first inaugural address

" God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable..... He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of Continental Congress

Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story (appointed by Pres. James Madison) called America a "Christian country" and slammed deism: " Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against. 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 presumed to exist in a Christian country."

" That book , Sir, is the rock on which our republic stands." Andrew Jackson, 7th President of U.S.

" It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

" ...a book worth more than all other books that were ever printed." Patrick Henry, on the bible

" I have always said, and always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens." Thomas Jefferson

" In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered... Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this proof: that God governs the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? 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. I therefore beg leave to move that , henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing upon our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed with business." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787

" We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! Give me liberty, of give me death." Patrick Henry

"Let my heart gracious God, be so affected with Your glory and majesty that I may.... discharge those weighty duties which thou requirest of me.... again, I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins... for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered on the cross for me. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me; and has given me assurance of salvation."

George Washington's diary

" God gave us life and gave us liberty. Can the liberty of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that those liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson, (the Jefferson Memorial)

" It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Patrick Henry

" He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin, Ambassador to France

" It would be improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being.... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of man more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seemed to have been distinguished by some providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." George Washington's first inaugural address

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams

" The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is the genuine Christianity, and to this ( Christianity) we owe our free Constitution of government." Noah Webster

" By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their liberty." the Supreme Court of Maryland, Runkle vs. Winemiller 1796

" 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 implore His protection and favor" U.S. Congress approving a national day of prayer and thanksgiving

" The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible...for use in schools" U.S. Congress 1782

" Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" U.S. Supreme Court - Vidal vs Girar, 1844

" The right to hold office was to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination." Roger Sherman, the only founding father to sign all four of America's major documents

"We are a Christian people, according to one another, the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God," U.S. Supreme Court / U.S. vs. Macintosh, 1931

Why do 67% of Americans believe that," the separation of church and state" is part of the first amendment?

" We are a religious people, and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, 1993

" I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing the Good Book and the good Spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.... Whether we look to the First Charter of Virginia, or to the Charter of New England, or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The same object is present; a Christian land governed be Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice of the law, and the reservation of powers to the people. I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country." Chief Justice Earl Warren, to Time magazine, 1954

The NEA's selections for inspiring American students in 1944: the Lord's prayer; the poem," Father in Heaven, We Thank Thee"; another poem that introduced the concept of daily prayers; a Thanksgiving poem that admonished kids to "thank the One who gave all the good things that we have". The "Wall of separation of Church and State" was a myth in 1944.

" But for the Bible, we would not know right from wrong." Abraham Lincoln

Contrast this with :

In 1985, Wallace vs. Jaffree, the Supreme Court declared that any bill (even those which are Constitutionally acceptable) is uncontitutional if the author of the bill had a religious activity in mind when the bill was written.

" We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1920

" It is arrogant to use the Constitution as the founding fathers intended, it must be interpreted in light of current problems and current needs." Supreme Court Justice Brennan, March 1993
 

People who don't believe in God often use the word to explain their concepts to people who do, as anything else would scare them, and provoke them to a lynching, or something.
Clear enough?
 

Rich,

Yeah, clear as mud.

Huh?
 

That's a fine stringer of anecdotes there, Mark. Real easy to find when you're fishing for them. Argumentum ad populum.

You know, "And you know it" is about the weakest way I know to end an assertion.

What I know is that more murder and mayhem has occurred in the name of Christ than in the name of the ACLU, or in the name of this secular nation But we're gasining). Do some more homework. ...

What astounds me is that Christians in this country are so damn weak that they insist on having civic icons (idols) everywhere. It truly must take a miracle for any unsaved person to hear thre still small voice -- the ONLY one that can reach the lost -- what with all the shouting about religion going on.

Eh, your stringer does nothing to dissuade me from the following, which is what I wrote, in the post itself:

This is a multicultural nation, with a majority of Christian people (by name), with a secular government. THANK GOD.

--ER
 

ER,

I do not believe it is a sign of weakness to have a desire to display objects which are important to you. As I look around my home office here, I see a picture of my wife and I before we were married, a picture of my boys, the head of the first buck I ever killed, the Confederate battle flag and lots of sports memorabilia. I am not weak for wanting to display these things. They are important to me and they give a picture of who I am to anybody that comes in.

Likewise, others are not weak for wanting to display items that portray their religion. It is a means of communication, and it is a means of memorializing.

The spin on referring to religious-displays as idols is weak. I do not care if a monument to the ten commandments is displayed anywhere. What does bother me is that it is an issue at all. Indirect though it may be, it is a basis for the law of the land. Displaying it should cause no commotion. By making such a display (in a federal courthouse, for instance), the US government is simply acknowledging its past; it is not sponsoring a religion. It may offend a few, but so what? There is no amendment to the Constitution that states that citizens have the right to not be offended. There are plenty of examples of other things that are offensive to a larger percent of the population, but because they are not deemed religious, they are 'ok'.
 

Mark, the fact that many of the founding fathers (not all) were Christian in some sense or another (although, as you yourself point out, there are many versions of Christianity, some of which apparently "count" and others that don't--I'll wager that the Christianity practiced by some of the founding fathers would fall into the "don't count" category, if you looked into it), has no bearing on whether the political entity called the "United States" which they created is, or is not, a theocracy. They went to pains, in fact, to differentiate between their political creation and their personal beliefs.

And, not to drag the topic back in, but since people are (were) up in arms about the abuse of children, what say y'all to Christians who recommend hitting children with a wooden paddle (scroll down), a "stiff, flexible rod" (a whip?), "hot saucing", Christian "rehabilitation" programs that abuse, and in some cases have even killed, children? Where is the outrage over that?
 

Dr. B,

Spanking is not abuse. It is not abuse whether I use my hand, a paddle, a rod, a wooden spoon, a hickory 'switch', or any other similar object. I can't say as I've ever heard of hot-saucing, although it didn't look too bad. Mama always made us swish with dish-washing soap or bite down on a bar of soap. It does not cause irreparable harm.

Yes, abuse occurs. Spankings are not a form of abuse. Any form of discipline must be measured. Abuse is not a form of discipline.
 

Hitting a kid with a goddamn stick most certainly *is* abuse. And encouraging other people to hit kids, with sticks or with their hands, is abusive, whatever you might think about spanking as a parent--in fact, precisely *because* doing so in the name of Christianity encourages parents who don't believe in hitting their kids to do so because God supposedly wants them to. And hot-saucing (did you read the link I posted?) has been known to cause burns, choking, and vomiting. Is not burning and/or choking a child and/or making her throw up, on purpose, a form of abuse? Children's taste buds and mouths are more sensitive than adults'--which is why children often will not eat even mildly spicy foods. Deliberately causing pain is abusive.

And I say this as a mother who has, on occasion, spanked my child. Which, by the way, I am not proud of. In every instance, I did it out of frustration and being at the end of my rope. When I am calmer, I have found that I am *always* able to correct him without hitting him.
 

Hey ER, the ACLU is a Fifth column for the ultra left wing of the nation. Those who cannot accept that socialism is a failed concept, organizations such as the Democratic Party. As for the posting from the rich bach guy picking on uneducated folks, well I'm not proud I didn't finish high school. My family needed the extra income, so I went to work young. But, by God, I've never done anything to dishonor myself or my family. Can you say the same?
 

I guess I'm just not as enlightened as you. I've never felt guilty for punishing my children via a spanking. It is very effective.

Yes, I read your link. I still don't have a problem with 'hot saucing'. That's not to say I will employ such a method, but if somebody else feels it is effective and wants to use it, then more power to them. There will always be exceptions where something goes wrong. That's a part of every aspect of life.

It's funny, but out here in the country, spanking isn't even debated. It is expected. If another's young'un is over here and gets to misbehavin', it is expected that I will straighten it out with a quick pop to the backside or on the back of the legs. Same goes for mine at somebody else's house. It's kind of like that 'village raising a child' thing that some like to embrace.
 

Melancholic,

I know that Jefferson and Franklin were deists. Outside of those two prominent figures, I am not so sure that deism was a shared belief among the other Founders. Free-masonry was a larger common denominator. The canons of the free-masons required that members be believers in God. It was not important in what way one acknowledged Him, only that one did so. This tolerance and acceptance of various forms of Christianity seems to be the impetus for the First Amendment. Once again, not in order to separate Church from State, but in order to include Christians (and non-Christians) of all doctrines (including deism).

The Founders did not want a state-sponsored church. They did not intend to have this complete separation that so many want today. Ironicly (to me, anyway), it seems that in the past few decades the free-masons have adopted a platform of complete separation of church and state.
 

I meant to say that the canons of free-masonry coupled with the experience of living under English rule (with their state-sponsored church) were the driving forces behind the first amendment.
 

Melancholic, thanks, thanks, thanks.

B, thanks.

Anon: OK. I understand you now. I disagree, but I understand. If you were posing the "have you disgraced your family" question to me -- I wasn't clear -- the answer is, "No," I haven't.

On corporal punishment: I got whipped and turned out all right. At school, too. I have never whipped a kid -- mainly because Bird was beyond whipping age before I came along, partly because she never did anything that deserved a whipping. If anyone else, outside of my extended family ever had raised a hand to her -- and some in my family, actually -- there'd been a fight ont he spot.

And, one of these days, I'll probably wind up in jail from kicking some parents ass when I see him or her literally beating -- obviously different from "whipping" -- a child in public. I do know abuse when I see it, and I have seen it, but have never been clsoe enough to intervene.

--ER
 

MARK MANESS READ THIS.

Friend of mine sent this in an e-mail, having no taste for this kind of discussion (which is cool with me, I do totally understand; this place IS like a roadhouse of ideas sometimes):
-----

David Barton's "Christian Nation" Myth Factory Admits Its Products Have Been Defective

By Rob Boston
Originally Published in Church & State Volume 49, No. 7, July/August
1996, pp 11-13. ...

[Church & State is Published by Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, a nonprofit educational corporation dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation.]
-----

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

So said James Madison, architect of the Constitution, defender of
religious freedom and fourth president of the United States, according to the Religious Right.

But to church-state separationists and historians of the post-colonial
period, something about this Madison quote has never felt quite right.

It seemed unlikely that the same Madison who advocated "total separation of the church from the state" and battled to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia would say it. The sentiment appeared to clash with his
well known advocacy of a healthy distance between religion and
government.

A few years ago, with the quote popping up increasingly in the mass
media (including Rush Limbaugh's daily radio show), Robert S. Alley,
professor emeritus at the University of Richmond and author of James Madison on Religious Liberty, undertook a dogged effort to track it down. Enlisting the help of the editors of The Papers of James Madison at the University of Virginia, Alley scoured reams of documents, books and writings. After coming up empty handed, the Madison scholar concluded that the quote was probably fictional.

Now the major purveyor of the quote, Texas-based Religious Right
propagandist David Barton, has admitted it's bogus. Last year Barton's group, WallBuilders, issued a one-page document titled "Questionable Quotes," a list of 12 statements allegedly uttered by Founding Fathers
and other prominent historical figures, that are now considered to be suspect or outright false. Madison's alleged comment about the Ten Commandments is number four on the list and is flatly declared by Barton to be "false."

Advocates of separation of church and state were left breathless over
Barton's audacity. For nearly 10 years, the Texas propagandist has
traveled the country putting on programs about America's alleged
"Christian heritage" at fundamentalist churches and other venues. During these events, Barton argued that the separation of church and state is a myth foisted on the country by the Supreme Court 50 years ago. The
United States, he insisted, was founded by Christians and was intended to be a fundamentalist-style "Christian nation."

What was Barton's proof for these claims? Many of the quotations he now admits are groundless! At least nine of the 12 were included in Barton's 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, and appeared in the video version, "America's Godly Heritage." Barton was so enamored of one quote supposedly uttered by Benjamin Franklin ("Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change
the face of the world.") that it was included on a biographical sketch WallBuilders distributes about Barton, saying it "fully sums up what David believes and teachers." Barton now admits the quote is "questionable" and recommends people don't use it.

Alley finds Barton's reliance on phony history disturbing. "It's one
thing to get up and make a speech and allude to something that isn't
there, but when you have somebody parading a document in a book and that turns out to be an outright lie it's more dangerous," Alley told Church & State. "The danger is that people will find credibility in what he does largely because he represents himself in that mode. He's a double
fraud."

Continued Alley, "For Barton to withdraw these quotes is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong to begin with."

Barton' s "Questionable Quotes" sheet tries to minimize the importance of the use of phony material. "Inevitably, the quotes will continue to be heard at the 'popular' level," reads the introduction. "Fret not; the
sun will still rise. But at the scholarly level, please refrain from, or at least be cautious in, using any quotation that cannot be
authenticated. Thank you for purifying your own waters in the world's rhetorical rivers."

In fact, much damage to Americans' understanding of their own history
has already been wrought by these Fake quotes. As Barton himself notes in promotional materials, "Many people have used quotes from our videos in writing 'Letters to the Editor' or sharing information with friends
or public officials." They have appeared incessantly in both right-wing and mainstream media and have been paraded about by conservative
columnists and talk radio programs across the nation. On October 7,
1992, former U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer of California, a staunch ally of the Religious Right, read the phony Madison quote into the Congressional Record. Millions of people may have been misled by this false information, only a tiny fraction of whom will ever see Barton's
"correction."

Barton's sloppy research and predilection to rely on questionable sources never stopped Religious Right activists from recommending his materials. Television preacher and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson has lauded Barton as a "wonderful man." "I admire him tremendously for his breadth of information," Robertson gushed.

Barton has addressed Christian Coalition national gatherings for three years running and is active in the group's Texas chapter. El Cajon, Calif., City Council member Bob McClellan, a Barton groupie, often accompanies the Texas propagandist to meetings and hawks his books and tapes. McClellan, a Coalition activist, posts a banner saying the materials "have been invaluable in furthering the principals [sic] behind the Christian Coalition in San Diego."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell sells Barton's materials at the Liberty
University bookstore, and the Texas activist has been interviewed at least twice by James Dobson on Focus on the Family's daily radio broadcast.

Even Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has praised Barton. In a speech about school prayer delivered at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 5, 1994, before he was named speaker, Gingrich -- who considers himself a historian -- called Barton's Myth of Separation book "most useful" and
"wonderful."

Incredibly, Barton appears to have emerged undamaged even after
admitting that many of his quotes are bogus, and he continues spreading incorrect information through the Religious Right's media empire. During his most recent Interview With Dobson May 2, Barton conceded that Thomas
Jefferson's famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut
calls for a "wall of separation between church and state." But Barton went on to claim that later in the letter Jefferson says separation "means the government will not run the church, but we will still use Christian principles with government." In fact, Jefferson's letter says
no such thing. (For more information about this and other Barton errors, see "Sects, Lies and Videotape," and "David Barton's Bad History," April
1993 -- Church & State)

Barton is apparently at least somewhat embarrassed by his inaccuracies, or at least wants to cover them up. Thus, The Myth of Separation has been "updated" and retitled Original Intent. The new, longer volume omits the phony quotes and some of the more egregious errors in The Myth
of Separation but remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings. Throughout, the book pitches the line that the United States was founded to be a "Christian nation" and charges that the modern Supreme Court and church-state separationists have covered up this legacy.

In his WallBuilder Report newsletter, Barton brags that the new volume contains "over thirteen hundred footnotes." He does not point out that The Myth of Separation also contained extensive footnotes but was still
inaccurate because the sources Barton relied on were wrong.

Meanwhile, a federal court ruled recently that Barton's materials are inappropriate for use in public schools. The case was brought by Lisa Herdahl, an Ecru, Miss., mother whose objection to official prayers at the local public school has captured national headlines. A less-noticed
part of her lawsuit challenges a class at the school known as "A
Biblical History of the Middle East."

Herdahl asserted that the course was a ruse for teaching fundamentalist Christianity, and U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. agreed. In his June 3 decision, Biggers noted that course instructors used Barton's
video "America's Godly Heritage," as well as other fundamentalist tapes, in class.

"[T]he only implication the court can draw from the showing of this and other religious films to a class of students supposedly studying Middle East history is that the teachers are attempting to indoctrinate the students in their religious beliefs by claiming to teach Middle East
history," Biggers wrote. "This practice can not be condoned in the
context of a public school system. It is best left to the family and the church."

Barton's recent misfortunes are not likely to slow down the "Christian
nation" movement. He continues to speak around the country, and scores of other Religious Right propagandists are also active, including Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar, TV preacher D. James Kennedy of
Coral Ridge Ministries and the Rev. Peter Marshall, who, like Barton, is a Christian Coalition favorite. These and some lesser known Religious Right activists crank out books, videos and other materials attacking separation of church and state and advocating union between religion and
government.

Commenting on the Madison "Ten Commandments" fiasco in a 1995 article for the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Alley, who serves on Americans United's Board of Trustees, noted, "Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison's works, just how does one prove it will not rum up in someone's attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot. ... But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical."

Concluded Alley, "We likely have not heard the last of this nonsense, but it is important to press the new media frauds to document what they claim. Because they cannot do so in most instances, time may ultimately
discredit the lot of them."
-----

Mything In Action:

David Barton's 'Questionable Quotes'

"Christian nation" propagandist David Barton has issued a statement
conceding that the following twelve quotations attributed to prominent historical figures are either false or at best questionable.

WallBuilders' observations about the quotes are in parenthesis.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! --Patrick Henry (questionable)

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. --George Washington (questionable)

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilizations
and our institutions are emphatically Christian. --The Supreme Court in Holy Trinity (false)

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison (false)

Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of
primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. -- Benjamin
Franklin (questionable)

The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its
authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine
authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public
disorders which society is doomed to suffer. -- Noah Webster
(questionable)

There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and
secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet. -- Noah Webster (questionable)

The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in
morality and religion. -- Abraham Lincoln (questionable)

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the
philosophy of government in the next. --Abraham Lincoln (questionable)

I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. -- Thomas Jefferson (questionable)

A general dissolution of principles and manners will surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first
external or internal invader. --Samuel Adams (questionable)

America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.-- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book, perhaps in other more obscure writings).
-----

Did the Supreme Court of New York, in an 1811 decision, ever say that
the First Amendment was "never meant to withdraw religion ... from all consideration and notice of the law?"

On page 248 of his The Myth of Separation, David Barton provides us with a highly edited quotation from The People v. Ruggles, an 1811 decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case involved a man arrested for publicly criticizing the Christian religion. Barton quotes the decision (written by Chief Justice James Kent) as follows:

Offenses against religion and morality ... strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties ... This [First Amendment] declaration ... never meant to withdraw religion ... and with it
the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law.

Note that Barton adds the words "First Amendment" in brackets. In doing so, Barton indicates that these words are not in the original quotation,
but are being provided for the sake of "clarity".

(Research by Jim Allison. Writing by Tom Peters.)

#
 

I go out to hunt a few arrowheads and come back and find that you guys have gone around the circle at two times. It has gotten so complicated that my foggey little libertarian mind needs some peace and direction. I think I'll go out in my back yard and burn some bison chips, sage, and sweet grass at my YODA shrine and meditate on my Johnny Walker induced Wisdon.
p.s.
ER, got my hands on an unopened bottle of Jim Beam from 1988. When sold it was 100 months old. Come around sometime and we will make sure it doesn't live much longer.
 

Must-watch for anyone who is still up (midnight central time, Saturday night). Tim Russert interviewing Catherine Crier, discussing this very issue. "Contempt: How the Right is Wronging American Justice."

In another interview wtih Harry Smith (The Early Show on CBS), Crier said: "The founding fathers had some real trouble with religion in Europe. When they got over here, they said, we are going to make sure we have a secular government. That doesn't mean moral or immoral. It's based upon all of the values and principles that we love and hold so dear. But we are not going to have a religion influence dictating the direction of the government."

Sounds like a worthy read.
 

Ok ER, you got me. So 12 of the quotes I quoted are either false or questionable. That leaves 20 that are not. let's see. 20-12. Score says America was founded as a Christian nation!

Seriously you can't believe that the founders of our country intended that God has no place in government.

Without God this country would descend into anarchy. Without God this country would have started out as an anarchy. Without God there is no moral compass. Sometimes common sense has to prevail.
 

I have stayed out of this nonsense on purpose, even though I have been following it.

I will not, at this late point in the discussion, try to defend any points that I agree with, or attack the ones I disagree with, however valid or invalid I consider them to be.

I will add my opinion, however.

I believe that the Constitution says what it says, because I am able to read and understand documents written in English.

I see God, and the Ten Commandments all over that document.

Our Constitution says in no uncertain terms, that Religion can be practiced whenever and wherever by whoever, and that it cannot be restricted, legally.

I will continue to consider the Religious beliefs and faith of the people for whom I vote, because I believe it is important to elect leaders who represent My own personal beliefs, to represent me in our Government.

I also believe that it is important to elect good, moral men to these positions of leadership, and the surest way to do this is to elect men who have a belief in something bigger than themselves, and bigger than our nation, men who have a strong moral compass, and follow it.

I have trouble supporting anyone who attempts to remove all mention of God from public discourse, in the name of tollerance (?).

ER, I will be glad when you find another topic to post about, and leave this late obsession you have found with removing God from everything.
 

Oh, and Congratulations for hitting the 75 comment mark.

You, sir, are indeed a mover and shaker within the blogosphere.

My Dale Earnhardt (SR, not JR) hat is off!!
 

Mark, I mean what I've said about this subject.

Tug, I'm glad you stayed out of this; we didn't have to fight over it. You have my obsessions. One of them is keeping church and state separate for the sake of both.

All, this from a friend who has been following along:

What's driving me crazy about the comment threads at your place is how ignorant and illogical the arguments are. The ACLU just *is* evil, just because it is. We're a Christian nation because x, y, and z, and when x, y, and z are shown to be untrue, well, we're a
Christian nation anyway. The ACLU has never defended Christians; well, okay, they have, but I still don't like 'em. I'm totally fine with arguing with conservatives; some of my best friends are
conservatives. I just can't stand deliberate ignorance or arguing in bad faith, y'know?

I KNOW. But that is the way of the Erudite Redneck Roadhouse of Ideas Great, Small and In Between.

And now, I have to go get ready for church. :-)

Note the word verifier. The spammers finally found me.

--ER
 

Set all this aside, E.R., and come buy pumpkins from me this afternoon. We're located caddy-corner from Mayfair. It will be hard to miss -- we'll have thousands (if the truck arrives today. It was supposed to come yesterday.)
 

Dang it, to Tuge, I meant, "You have my obsessions wrong ..."

--ER
 

Doggone it, I meant we are caddy-corner from Mayflower. Across the major wacky intersection.
 

just wanted to see if i was dumb enough to comment
 

ER, after meditating on YODA's council, I have to say this has been worthwhile.
For what it is worth, this exchange of comments did change my knowledge of the seperation of Church and State. After looking into the information on the web, I now hold that:

1. The founding fathers did believe in a higher power but they could not agree as to what that ment.

2. Even so, or because of it, they put a WALL between Any and All Relgion and the Congress making laws about it, or messing with it, in the First Amendment.

3. Because of Leftist Judicial Activism in the 20th Century, that wall has been breach, and is no longer there.

These are three things I have learned or solidified this week while following this discussion and seeking to understand it. Thanks to you all, even those of the contributers who do have a cranial presence in their dark anal chamber.
 

Dialogue is always worthwhile. Even angry dialogue sometimes.

--ER
 

Ok, you’ve had your say. See I can keep quite when your topic is of something I could care less about. Now to the point, i.e. ACLU vs. who knows what, state religion vs. who knows what:
God set the world on zero! It can sway a degree or two left or right but always comes back to zero.
There are religious people and not religious people, that’s just the way it is. There are rich people and poor people, that’s just the way it is. You can’t change it. I could go on but will not. You can work your ass off in your town, village, city whatever and effect a small portion of the population, but you can’t change the world as a whole. It’ll make you feel better but that’s as far as it goes. If George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Sr., or Ronald Reagan were aborted it would not matter.
Make a million dollars and give 75% to a soup kitchen, you’ll sleep better. At Christmas if you see a man or woman with a kid or two with in tow, hand them whatever is in your wallet and say, “buy em something nice for Christmas”. Don’t think you can change God’s world! I say “God” tongue in cheek because who knows what nickname he prefers. Lighten up you’ll live longer, and can do more good!
 

Whoa, if I were that fatalistic, I'd rob banks for a living. Thanks for the contribution, though. :-)

Trixie: Dr. ER and I drove to get a pumpkin and y'all were just barely setting up! Didn't see ya amongs the crowd of pumpkins carriers. ...

--ER
 

We are the tired, the worn out, the pumpkin toters. Sorry I missed seeing you but we're now open for bidness. I probably was inside setting up the crafts sales area in the gym. I'll have photos over on my blog shortly.

Later in the week I will post a link to today's sermon at my church which just about wraps up everything on the topic as far as I'm concerned. Stay tooned!
 

If this were a Christian nation don't you think the founding fathers would have mentioned that in our Constitution somewhere? Do you think they just forgot?

I challenge anyone to find the words Christian, Christ, Christianity, God, Jesus, 10 Commandments, Bible or anything else endorsing one religion over another in the Constitution.

Mark, to address you question as to what kind of nation we are we are a Secular nation full of all different religions and races; all of which are welcomed. Other Fanatic countries in the world are not Secular they are religious and those countries all suck! Example: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc. They all have a state sponsored religion and it doesn't work.

For anyone who wants a Fundamentalist supported state religion I suggest moving to one of the above countries.
 

RE Pastor Tim

You know who came up with the Representative model of government before the Bible; The Greeks.

So no, just because something was a certain way in the Bible doesn't mean it was original or that people in the Bible didn't steal it from elsewhere; it didn't come from God. Look at Hammurabi's code of laws which was written several hundred years before the first 10 Commandments. Hammurabis was much more involved, complex and complete. Moses simply stole those principles from Hammurabi.

And this is another point; Hammurabi's code of laws are much more relevant to our countries laws than is the 10 Commandments; so if any tablet of laws should be posted in courthouses it should be Hammurabis laws; not the primitive 10 commandments.
 

Holy crap 88 comments!!! There is no way on God's green earth I can get thru all these. I'll scan them but I'll put my mezzly two cents worth in.

America is not necessarily a "Christian" nation but it should have a secular government. how else could "others" be American if it were only Christian.
 

In RE: Past T,

Federalism theologically does not equal political federalism.

Individual responsibility must be taken into account. The father may be responsible for the household, but the kid will be certainly be responsible regardless of father's good or bad instruction. Anyway, topic for a different forum

Toad7???,
Check your history, the Greeks were not before the Bible.

And what evidence is there that Moses stole the 10 commandements? Don't bother I've heard the diatribe before. Besides, your liberal theology want let you even believe Moses existed much less had any connection to the 10 commandments. I believe P would have been the editor. But alas this has NOTHING to do with ER's post (i.e. where the 10 commandments originated and who authored them).
 

Pecheur:

They were practicing a form of Democracy long before Christianity.

What you are referring to was not the Bible, it was called the Torah.

So if you want to say that the US had a root in Judaism you would have a stronger argument.

And yes Hammurabi wrote his Code of Laws several hundred years before Moses wrote his; Moses' 10 Commandments have several laws that are identical to Hammurabis.

Check your history.
 

Toad7,

OK I'll agree the Greeks were using democracy before the US, but that is not what you said. You made it sound like somehow the bible advocates represenative governement which was being practised before by the Greeks.

And I am totally confused with your Torah comment. Everyone knows that the 10 commandements were part of the Jewish Torah. But did you forget that Christians have accepted the OT as canon? Therefore, the OT is Christian as well as Jewish. The correct term would be Judeo-Christian. BTW I don;t believe the country was set up as a Judeo-Christian nation. It was set up according to secular democracy with a Judeo-Christian influence.

And the Hammurabi code issue...I don;t know of anyone who denies they aren't older. Of course they are. But what is denied is the intentional stealing of them by "Moses". Moses was supposedly in Egypt not Babylon. How did he get them? Again another topic for another day
 

How did the Romans get the idea of representative government from the Greeks if they were in a different place and time? How did the west get Silk from China? How did the west get banking from the Middle East? They traded.

I am not calling Moses a thief; I am saying that the idea of don't, steal, don't kill, don't lie and don't fuck your neighbors wife were not ideas that Judeo society invented, nor did Moses or his God. By the way only 3 of the 10 commandments are in our US legal system today and they were all in Hammurabis secular code as well, hundreds of years before Moses wrote another form of them in the 10 Commandments.

So, what I am saying is all these "Biblical", or "Christian" principles that people say this country was founded on aren't Biblical or Christian. Mainly because those principals didn't even originate within this Judeo-Christian realm, but also because the Bible wasn't a Bible, it was a Torah and there were no Christians at the time it was written.

I have written about this in my blog, the Hammurabis code, Justinian law and the Magna Carta have had a greater impact on shaping our country and its legal system than the 3 commandments Moses wrote about, which, as I said, were already covered by Hammurabi.
 

Please keep use of the F-word to a minimum. Not that my ears -- or eyes -- are that sensitive. I've used it myself in this space -- to my regret. I have regular readers whose ears and eyes ARE that sensitive, and I respect them. Gracias.

--ER
 

Last word on this from me.

FYI I have no problem in saying this nation was not built on "Christian" religion. But I also cannot say the founding fathers were Babylonian either. In fact you are right, probably the principles were more "secular" than "christian". That is not to say there was no Judeo-Christian influnce. To say there was no Judeo-Christian influence is to marginalize both major world religions.

The problem I have is that Hammurapi code was not the beginning of moral law either. There are 2nd mill BC law records also.

And I think "don't steal, kill, and I believe the words are commit adultery" do orginate from Moses' God. The gods of the ANE were not moral in their laws to man or even in their delaings with mortals. Only YHWH, the God of the Hebrews was.

Anyway good talk see ya around