Listen to This

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

As for Jefferson, he not just trashed the Church of England, but the Church in GENERAL. In a June 5th 1824 letter to Major John Cartwright, Jefferson wrote, “Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground [than religion]. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts."

This shows that you have done what liberal secularists have done for years to prove their points without fully researching Jefferson and his disdain for what the church had become since the time of St. Paul, and merely take excerpts of the writings without further investigation.

Suggested reading (in it's entirety), Founding Faith by Steven Waldman

An excerpt:

"...Jefferson's editing of the Bible flowed directly from a well-thought out, long-stewing view that Christianity had been fundamentally corrupted -by the Apostle Paul, the early church, the great Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and by nearly the entire clerical class for more than a millennium. Secularists love to point to the Jefferson Bible as evidence of his heathen nature; but that misses the point, too..."

"...But read through Jefferson's writings on faith and one finds not only an erudite philosophy but a deep rage. To understand his views on liberty, we must tap into this fury. Jefferson believed that a secret to religious freedom was destroying the concept of heresy, the crime of expressing unauthorized religious thought. And he cared deeply - personally, passionately - about heresy because, in the context of his times, Thomas Jefferson was a heretic, and wanted to live in a nation that tolerated men like him.


As stated before, research the topic(s) in their entirety. I'll address no more as the arguments have become as typical as attempting to reason with a drunk. Your term of self describing "anarchist" seems to be why you may be here.

As for everyone else, it has been quite engaging.

(Edit: And...may we all thank our current and past veteran-patriots for allowing all of us to post our beliefs, and in some cases, facts. Those beliefs would be including those posted by liberals, democrats, right wing, conservatives, republicans, and anarchists. It appears that the foundation of those sacrifices have been lost within some of the ridiculous preceding diatribe that has been posted by some.

So I ask the liberals and those that are too far left to be called liberal, what have you done in thanks for the liberties secured to you by those that have given the supreme sacrifice in honor of what they have secured for you?)

Signed: Respectfully in honor of those who have maintained the spirit and truth of our founders. Here's to all of those heros (current and past) that allow us to post our views, no matter how incredulous they may be viewed by any, one, person that may read them.

As Red Skelton used to say, "...and May God Bless." He didn't say, "God bless," because to say that, would put a demand on God.
(I'll never forget that sign-off.)

SaddleSarge
P.S. Alva, I see you're logged on (02:23A my time). Don't Google, go read a book.

[SaddleSarge]

Intersting visitor messages:

Big Bore 09-01-2008 04:33 PM

Hey Alva, there is one person on this site that thinks U have it right. Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever going to do any good to try to confront most of these folk with the facts. Black + White is so much easier to sell! The hard right slogans and adds thrown out everywhere on these sites and in the gun + shooting magazines (even gun company literature) chases off a lot of potential support for the right to own and lawfully use firearms. The word "ignorance" I think comes from ignore. There IS a LOT of ignoring goin on. And they say "Ignorance is bliss", there's some real happy guys runnin around. You are trying to make Brick Heads think. I think all you'll accomplish is to find what your on level of frustration is. More power to ya! You'll find soon that when you confront 'em with the facts, and it looks like they are wrong , the debate (such as it is) will end and they will start calling you names and telling you to move to Cuba or somewhere. Sticks + Stones. Best of luck to you.


Alvagoldbook 09-01-2008 07:19 PM

heya,
Thanks for your kind words. A lot of this I suppose is just an emotional release for me. I suppose most of these people won't agree with me 90% of the time, but I suppose there's a chance to change the minds of a few people on a few things. I just try to be as polite and informative as I know how and hope for the best.

Well, that shows the reality agenda.

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by 45nut

Hey alva,

Show me where in the US Constitution you find the phrase "separation of church and state"? I didn't think so. End of story.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Originally Posted by 45nut

Since 90% of the founding fathers was a member of their local church, the free expression of your religious views wasn't even an issue then.

90% of the Founders were Deists. It was the age of Enlightenment. Washington, though he never discussed it publicly, was a Deist. Jefferson was a Deist. Madison was a Deist. Franklin was a Deist. Adams was a Christian.

Originally Posted by 45nut

Did they have prayer in schools? Yes they did. Were they led by the teachers and principles? Yes, they were.

Nonsense. There was no public schools in those days. In fact, the only place to get any kind of education was in a church. If you wanted to get a real education you went to a university. The founding of the University of Virginia was one of Jefferson’s proudest accomplishments, more so than being President. And no, there wasn’t prayer at the beginning each day at the University of Virginia.

Originally Posted by 45nut

Were there after school student led groups that worshipped Satan or any other god other than Jehovah God or Jesus Christ? No there weren't. You might wonder why. Probably because they understood the morals and principles that this country was founded upon.

The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Washington, and signed into law by John Adams states in Article 11:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]”

Furthermore, Jefferson himself denied that US Law had ANYTHING to do with Christianity. In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper on Feb. 10, 1814 Jefferson wrote:

“Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because they never were…Sir Matthew Hale expressed in these words, 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.’ But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it....We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is…In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are."

Originally Posted by 45nut

Look at all the problems in schools today; shootings, stabbings, teachers attacked and raped by students, teachers fondling and molesting students.

Did we have this much trouble in schools when the principle started the day with a prayer followed by the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance?

What does school violence have to do with prayer? Stressed out kids on pharmaceuticals with screwed up parents are going to be violent no matter if you pray to Jesus or pray to the man in the moon. While we’re at it, we might as well say that school violence would go away if increased taxes on the wealthy. After all, back in the 50’s when there was no such thing as kids killing each other in schools, and taxes on the wealthy were at 91%. Just because B follows A doesn’t mean you’ve established cause and effect.

Originally Posted by 45nut

Here's my point: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals. Yet today, you cannot pray to the God (Jesus, NOT allah, buddha, mohammed, hare chrishna, joseph smith, et al) of the Founding Fathers at a stinking football game.

Sure you can pray. Kids do it before a test all the time. The only kicker is that you have to keep it to yourself. Even Jesus himself called people who lead public prayers "hypocrites". Instead, Jesus expressedly stated that if you wanna pray to your heavenly father go to your room, close the door, and pray to him in secret.

Originally Posted by 45nut

You can have a teacher sponsored after school class where wickens can expound on their faith in satan, wood nymphs or whatever it is they worship. Can you have a teacher sponsored after school class that expounds on the faith of Christians? No, you can't mention the name of Jesus and you can't pray out loud.

Wickens don’t believe in Satan. Fairies perhaps, but not Satan. And as far as I’m concerned, any public school that allows after school classes for Christians or Wickens to expound their faith is a violation of the Separation Clause. If you want to invite your fellow classmates to your church, then fine. But do it in a church.

Originally Posted by 45nut

So where is the freedom of religion, if one stinking atheist objecting to prayer, makes 399 "christian" children have to do with out? Why is the minority leading the majority around by the nose????

How is keeping your religion to yourself a violation of your rights, especially when your Messiah told you to keep it to yourself? Forcing others to participate in your religion is no different no matter what your faith is. What if your child happened to live in a predominately Jewish or Muslim neighborhood? Should your child have to pray in Hebrew or pray to Allah every day? Wouldn’t that be a violation of HIS right to be a Christian and pray to HIS God?

Originally Posted by Marlin T

I’ll admit my distain for this self admitted anti American and that I shouldn’t lower myself to what the liberals usually do; name calling.

Marlin says he shouldn’t lower himself to name calling and calls me anti-American all in the same sentence. Wow.

Originally Posted by Marlin T

My point was the founding Fathers didn’t site Rousseau as a good source, that must have been for a reason. Surely that isn’t where “Nature…” came from. Therefore, not a part of the founding of the USA, so, in other words, who cares.

If you think the Founders never cited Rousseau, or was influenced by his work, then you’ve got some reading to do. You could start with The Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Where do you think these ideas came from? The wild blue yonder? They came directly from Rousseau.

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

"...Jefferson's editing of the Bible flowed directly from a well-thought out, long-stewing view that Christianity had been fundamentally corrupted -by the Apostle Paul, the early church, the great Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and by nearly the entire clerical class for more than a millennium. Secularists love to point to the Jefferson Bible as evidence of his heathen nature; but that misses the point, too..."

I’ll have to read Waldman’s piece. It will be interesting to note if Waldman even bothered to mention that the Jefferson Bible is identical to the standard King James version, just with all the miracles edited out.

[SaddleSarge]

Hey Alva and Big Bore,

No one can trust anything you post.

Someone who tries to take a swing at me is 100% honest, but I hate a liar. I may violate the rules of this board and will gladly be disbanded, but you both disrespect those that have secured your rights to lie.

Refer to my previous post above your last. You both have no desire to delve into truth, only agenda.

As John Wayne said in the Cowboys, "I don't hold jail against you, but I hate a liar."

No room for liars with hidden agendas....anywhere.

(Edit) Again, it just SUCKS to be caught when trying to pose as a supporter of freedom when you're interested in a social/communistic agenda. It just SUCKS, doesn't it? We need to find liberal forums and log in as "flowersandtruth" then lie through our teeth.

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

(Edit: And...may we all thank our current and past veteran-patriots for allowing all of us to post our beliefs, and in some cases, facts. Those beliefs would be including those posted by liberals, democrats, right wing, conservatives, republicans, and anarchists. It appears that the foundation of those sacrifices have been lost within some of the ridiculous preceding diatribe that has been posted by some.

So I ask the liberals and those that are too far left to be called liberal, what have you done in thanks for the liberties secured to you by those that have given the supreme sacrifice in honor of what they have secured for you?)

Signed: Respectfully in honor of those who have maintained the spirit and truth of our founders. Here's to all of those heros (current and past) that allow us to post our views, no matter how incredulous they may be viewed by any, one, person that may read them.

I am ever so thankful every day for all of our fore bearers who gave so much to their posterity. From our Founders all the way down to our veterans of today. It is truly awe-inspiring and humbling. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence gave up more than most of us know in order for us to be free. Some had to hide their children, and never saw them again. Others died in the Revolution leaving their families paupers. When the British took John Hancock’s home and used it to store cannons to use against us, Hancock told General Washington to fire upon his own home. Washington did, and it was destroyed. Altogether, nine of the men in that room died, and four lost their children as a direct result of putting their names to the Declaration of Independence. Everyone of them had to flee his home, and after the war, twelve returned to find only rubble. This is the sacrifice that these great and brave men gave to us. It is a lesson none of us should ever forget, much less give up, for any reason ever. Using that freedom that these men gave us is the best way that I can think of to honor them.

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

Well, that shows the reality agenda.

Reality agenda?

[SaddleSarge]

Originally Posted by alvagoldbook

I am ever so thankful every day for all of our fore bearers who gave so much to their posterity. From our Founders all the way down to our veterans of today. It is truly awe-inspiring and humbling. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence gave up more than most of us know in order for us to be free. Some had to hide their children, and never saw them again. Others died in the Revolution leaving their families paupers. When the British took John Hancock’s home and used it to store cannons to use against us, Hancock told General Washington to fire upon his own home. Washington did, and it was destroyed. Altogether, nine of the men in that room died, and four lost their children as a direct result of putting their names to the Declaration of Independence. Everyone of them had to flee his home, and after the war, twelve returned to find only rubble. This is the sacrifice that these great and brave men gave to us. It is a lesson none of us should ever forget, much less give up, for any reason ever. Using that freedom that these men gave us is the best way that I can think of to honor them.



Reality agenda?

Nice try. I am acutely aware of those stats for probably more years than you have been a member of the "y" generation. Easy stats to post. Let's get back to patriotism and more importantly, "honesty."

What's you're agenda, really, truth? Don't be typical liberal and lie behind quotes of support. You and Big Bore are caught. Nothing you can say will support your agenda now. You two are Judas Goats.

As Big Bore suggested, nah....I never have liked Cuba.

(Edit: NO. My question was..."what have YOU done?" Reread my post and quit spinning.)

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

Hey Alva and Big Bore,

No one can trust anything you post.

Someone who tries to take a swing at me is 100% honest, but I hate a liar. I may violate the rules of this board and will gladly be disbanded, but you both disrespect those that have secured your rights to lie.

I don't know what the rules of this board are, as I'm a member of so many boards, I rarely bother to read the rules. I try to follow a simple rule. Be polite. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I don't even mind heated debate or soft yelling. I find it to be a kind of emotional release to get in a good ole long heated debate. So, if you have violated the rules of this board, for what it's worth, I personally don't mind. (Hey, I'm an anarchist. We don't like rules) I would rather continue the discussion then have it shut off.

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

Refer to my previous post above your last. You both have no desire to delve into truth, only agenda.

I am only interested in the truth.

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

No room for liars with hidden agendas....anywhere.

What did I lie about?

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

(Edit) Again, it just SUCKS to be caught when trying to pose as a supporter of freedom when you're interested in a social/communistic agenda. It just SUCKS, doesn't it? We need to find liberal forums and log in as "flowersandtruth" then lie through our teeth.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way we CAN be free is through a direct participatory democracy and through anarcho-syndicalist economic policies. It is not an agenda. It is what long study and careful consideration has convinced me is the truth.

[RDak]

Alva: Anarchism is defined as:

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government.

You stated in part:

(Hey, I'm an anarchist. We don't like rules)

You are anything but an anarchist. For example you believe in compulsory national health care. There are many other compulsory rules you believe government should be involved in. Most I've read are Communist in origin and are anything but anarchist IMHO.

To say that you believe in anarchism is silly at best and dishonest at worst IMHO.

In reality, from reading many of your posts, you beliveve in Totalitarianism IMHO. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of anarchism.

You say you like good, honest debate. I find it very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't really know what he/she stands for and is "all over the place" with his/her arguments.

I don't know, maybe you're very young and still trying to find your way philosophically in life?

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by RDak

Alva: Anarchism is defined as:

You stated in part:

You are anything but an anarchist. For example you believe in compulsory national health care. There are many other compulsory rules you believe government should be involved in. Most I've read are communist in origin and are anything but anarchist IMHO.

To say that you believe in anarchism is silly at best and dishonest at worst IMHO.

Anarchism covers a broad range of ideas RDak. Some would define anarchism as "the lack of rules" or "disorder". And yet Proudhon himself said that "anarchism is order."

There is a world's difference between anarcho-capitalism (which in this country is usually referred to as libertarianism) and anarcho-communism. As someone of the anarcho-syndicalist or the libertarian socialist tradition, I am opposed to all forms of tyranny over men. That includes government and that includes business as well. A health care system run by business is a tyranny over men. A health care system run by the government is one too. However, if we had a government that was controlled by the people and we had national health care there would be less danger of a tyranny than there is now. So when I say we need nationalized single payer health care, it is within that context...that we control the government, not the other way around. Right now, we at least have representative control...which every day looks more like a joke. This is why I'm in favor of moving towards a form of direct democracy to keep the representative democracy in check.

[RDak]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again you are "all over the place".

Capitalist health care is not tyranny over men. It is an industry where profits and losses can be made.

You may not like the costs of our current health care system and want to bring them down forcefully. You want to make health care free for those who cannot afford it and have it paid for by people who can afford it (i.e., those who can afford it being determined by rules and regulations). That is tyranny over men IMHO.

The rest of your post fits that mode IMHO.

You want rules that bolster your views - fine. But don't try and attempt to give the impression that you are an anarchist in any way, shape or form.

In fact, you believe in FAR more regulation and control than I would ever approve of.

[Terry_P]

Alva said: As far as I'm concerned, the only way we CAN be free is through a direct participatory democracy and through anarcho-syndicalist economic policies. It is not an agenda. It is what long study and careful consideration has convinced me is the truth.



You want direct democracy in a country of 250 million? So we all go to Washington and and have a big town meeting each year to figure out what roads we want to build, bridges to build, how much money to fund the military with, how much welfare, what the tax rate will be? Explain how direct democracy would work as you obviously have carefully thought this out or will this just another one of my unanswered questions?? Oh yes 100 words or less give me the short version.

[RDak]

Not much would get done would it Terry?

[Terry_P]

Originally Posted by RDak

Not much would get done would it Terry?

Well you never know what long study and careful consideration will bring.

[RDak]

[45nut]

sabashimon

Of course, we both worship Jehovah, the Alpha and Omega!!

Good ole alva sure has been reading the re-writes too long hasn't he? We know what our country was founded on and by whom.

See below: (sorry for the crooked lines, it didn't copy well)

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%


Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html

More good reading. Nuff said.

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

That goes on my list of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

Delta, you know foolishness when you read it. Enough said.

Originally Posted by sabashimon

Hey 45nut, do I get to stay?

First Jewish Synagogue Was Dedicated in the United States
December 2, 1763
Many settlers traveled to the American colonies for freedom of worship. Quakers, Puritans, Jews, and people of other faiths arrived to create communities in what would become the United States. On December 2, 1763, members of the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, witnessed the dedication of the Touro Synagogue, the first synagogue in the American colonies. The synagogue was named for Isaac Touro, its first officiating rabbi. Touro became the center of a thriving Jewish community.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-b...onial/jewish_1

And delta13soultaker, a big +1 on your last post!

Shimon,

Another bit of history you may not have heard. During the early part of the American Revolution, a Jewish merchant donated a considerable sum of money to the fledgling Marine Corps so that they could purchase swords for the officers. Since then, all swords authorized by the U.S.M.C. have been marked with the Star of David on the blade, up to and including the current officers' Marmeluke and the NCO sword I have in my closet at home.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by USMC-03

Shimon,

Another bit of history you may not have heard. During the early part of the American Revolution, a Jewish merchant donated a considerable sum of money to the fledgling Marine Corps so that they could purchase swords for the officers. Since then, all swords authorized by the U.S.M.C. have been marked with the Star of David on the blade, up to and including the current officers' Marmeluke and the NCO sword I have in my closet at home.

Most interesting, USMC. I didn't know that. For a nation as multi-cultural as ours, that seems a most appropriate symbol indeed. The Mameluke, interestingly enough, is a Persian design adopted by the Marine Corps after the war against the Barbary Pirates in 1804, in honor of the Marine Corps capture of the Tripolitan city of Derna during that conflict.

[sabashimon]

Thanks for that USMC.
You're right, I did not know that.
Fascinating tidbit of history whose relevancy has been upheld and maintained throughout the years by the Marines.

[TranterUK]

Just a quick note to say I have learnt a great deal from reading this thread, and appreciate your taking the time to add too it.

Cant say I agree with all the entries, but you wouldn't expect that.

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Most interesting, USMC. I didn't know that. For a nation as multi-cultural as ours, that seems a most appropriate symbol indeed. The Mameluke, interestingly enough, is a Persian design adopted by the Marine Corps after the war against the Barbary Pirates in 1804, in honor of the Marine Corps capture of the Tripolitan city of Derna during that conflict.

Correct, Pistol. The original was presented to Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon by Prince Hamet for the efforts of O'Bannon and his marines to restore Hamet to the Tripolitan throne. In 1825, then Marine Corps Commandant Archibald Henderson adopted the Mameluke sword for wear by Marine officers. It is the oldest currently authorized weapon in the U.S. military and other than the periods of the American Civil War and World War II, in has been in continuous service since adaptation. .

Originally Posted by sabashimon

Thanks for that USMC.
You're right, I did not know that.
Fascinating tidbit of history whose relevancy has been upheld and maintained throughout the years by the Marines.

Your welcome Shimon. We needed to lighten things up a little anyway...

[45nut]

alva,

Still waiting for you to find "separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution. Can't find it can ya? Maybe it's because it ain't there!

See the list above for the church affiliations of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

James Madison
• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

John Quincy Adams:
• “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 [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of 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 Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."


“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter):
Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

“ O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”
[George Washington; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson - "George Washington, the Christian" (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]

"Although guided by our excellent Constitution in the discharge of official duties, and actuated, through the whole course of my public life, solely by a wish to promote the best interests of our country; yet, without the beneficial interposition of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we could not have reached the distinguished situation which we have attained with such unprecedented rapidity. To HIM, therefore, should we bow with gratitude and reverence, and endeavor to merit a continuance of HIS special favors". [1797 letter to John Adams]

Thank you and E Pluribus Umun

[Marlin T]

First off let me point out that communism is not a pro American stance, rather Anti American, anti free trade, you know, everything you stand for. Just calling a spade a spade Alva without the name-calling.

Where do you think these ideas came from? The wild blue yonder? They came directly from Rousseau.

The wild blue yonder you ask, well sure, if that is where you think God, The Creator lives and where the Ten Commandment came from.

The words Nature, Natures God, Primary law of Nature, The Laws of Nature, Natural Rights, Law of self-preservation, State of Natural Liberty, absolute rights, and so on, that were used repeatedly in numerous documents were first in reference to God.

But it was more than that also, if you read >>>THIS<<< link (Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, James Wilson) you’ll find that the person that wrote extensively on this subject was Sir William Blackstone.

Blackstone’s name and works comes up throughout and repeatedly in what our Founding Fathers wrote.

I would highly suggest that you find and read Blackstone’s work. His name and works are still being studied, and quoted in the Supreme Court today. But I doubt that you will as it just might corrupt your communist/atheist agenda.

It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, but God and his many names are part of the United States history.



Thanks 45nut for that list, outstanding!!!
Thanks SaddleSarge.

Wow USMC, that is a really cool part of history that I did not know. Thanks again.

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by RDak

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again you are "all over the place".

My apologies. I’ll try to be more concise.

Originally Posted by RDak

Capitalist health care is not tyranny over men. It is an industry where profits and losses can be made.

You may not like the costs of our current health care system and want to bring them down forcefully. You want to make health care free for those who cannot afford it and have it paid for by people who can afford it (i.e., those who can afford it being determined by rules and regulations). That is tyranny over men IMHO.

The rest of your post fits that mode IMHO.

Capitalist health care isn’t a tyranny…for the capitalist. But for every person who’s denied health coverage for a pre-existing condition, or for every kid with cancer who’s HMO refuses treatment, it is the literal definition of tyranny. If a institution denies your right to LIFE, then how is it not a tyranny?

Originally Posted by RDak

You want rules that bolster your views - fine. But don't try and attempt to give the impression that you are an anarchist in any way, shape or form.

In fact, you believe in FAR more regulation and control than I would ever approve of.

Anarchism does not mean lawlessness. We should understand that any institution that has power over men is a tyranny. Any regulation is a way to control an institution. If (and that’s a big IF) the PEOPLE are the ones welding that regulation it is not a tyranny, and is consistent with anarchism. If that regulation is welded by any institution against the people, it is a tyranny. I hope that makes my thoughts clear on the topic.

Originally Posted by Terry_P

You want direct democracy in a country of 250 million? So we all go to Washington and and have a big town meeting each year to figure out what roads we want to build, bridges to build, how much money to fund the military with, how much welfare, what the tax rate will be?

In a way, yes.

Originally Posted by Terry_P

Explain how direct democracy would work as you obviously have carefully thought this out or will this just another one of my unanswered questions?? Oh yes 100 words or less give me the short version.

It’s gonna be hard to be concise here, but I’ll give it my best shot.

First, the problem. We have a representative democracy (a republic) that is no longer addressing the needs, much less the will of the people. Since YOU are the world’s leading expert on what YOU want, then for the people to get what they want out of government, then they need to be a part of it. Basically, move to a form of direct democracy.

Second, the problem with moving to a direct democracy is that it is 1) time consuming 2) people will have to learn how to solve their own problems without the expertise to do so and 3) getting together in one place to work this out would be a logistical nightmare.

So what do we do? We could stick to the two party system we got. Team A can pick a bunch of positions, some of which you agree, some of which you despise or you can go with Team B and have the same problem.

But what if we had a way to get our government to do exactly what we want them to do, so that we can spend 99% of the time not worrying about our government at all?

After a LONG time pondering this I came to a simple conclusion. Create a kind of direct democracy that would be a check on our representative democracy.

Here’s what we do: We make every single American CITIZEN a lawmaker. We create a third house of congress. Call it, The House of the People. To get a law passed 50% plus 1 (a majority) of the people vote for a law and it becomes a law without the President being able to sign it or veto it.

So how in the hell do we do this? All of us meet in D.C. every month? No. That would suck. Instead what we do is we have it written into law that The House of the People is at all times sitting and in session, but it does not need to gather PHYSICALLY in order to proceed. Basically, the House of the People is always running, we can do our business, but we don’t actually have to meet. So how do we get anything done if we aren’t actually meeting up someplace? Well, there’s the wonders of the internet.

Here’s how I envision it, but this can be done a few different ways. When you turn 18 you get a voters card and a card that includes you into the House of the People. I’m sure some kind of security code system and password would have to be set up, but we pretty much do that with our bank accounts anyway.

Now suppose you want to write a law. You just write it and submit it to your state for consideration. Everyone in your state gets an e-mail, reads your law, and votes yes or no. If it passes at the state level, it goes to the federal level, where everyone gets to again vote yes or no. If it passes a majority, it becomes law.

Now…problem one…what if you write a law that is unconstitutional? Say banning hand guns. Well, the same thing happens as if Congress passed that law. The courts hear a case and decide if it’s constitutional or not.

Now, doing all this all the time would be a bother. Even if it’s just as easy as answering your e-mail. So here’s what we do. We give this new House of the People to right to (with majority vote) overturn any decision our government makes. Suppose Obama becomes President and he renews the assault weapon ban. If the majority of the people want to overturn that law we can. All we have to do is vote for it and get a majority to agree.

Now here’s the real kicker. What if Obama just keeps re-inacting an assault weapon ban, and it becomes tiresome to keep overturning the law? Well, with majority vote the House of the People has the power to remove anyone in the government from office. Any sitting judge. Any sitting President. Any sitting Congressman.

So what happens when all this is done? If you start to think about how power will shift, the politicians will be scared out of their wits of us. They will do everything they possibly can to keep us happy. So much so that we wouldn’t actually have to use this power all that often. Within a few years there would be no more political parties because it would become pointless. No need to elect a Republican or a Democrat. Just a candidate who is going to do the job, and do it well. It would be more like you hiring an employee to work in your office than hiring a politician who will stab you in the back as soon as he‘s sworn in.

So that’s the plan.

Here’s the actual language I wrote that would accomplish this.

http://articleeight.blogspot.com

Sorry, I tried to be concise, but hopefully that explains it well enough. I don’t wanna completely hijack the topic on this thread, so if anyone wants to continue the conversation about this, maybe we should move it to a new thread.

Originally Posted by 45nut

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%

……………

Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

I’d have to look everyone else up, but I know off hand that while Doctor Rush was born a Presbyterian, and grew up Presbyterian, later in life he converted to Deism. I would note that earlier in this thread I quoted a letter from Jefferson to Doctor Rush on this very topic. Rush’s letters to Jefferson indicate that he was very much of a similar mind to Jefferson, albeit on a less sure footing.

Originally Posted by 45nut

alva,

Still waiting for you to find "separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution. Can't find it can ya? Maybe it's because it ain't there!

Again, I refer you to the previous Jefferson quote, and numerous others by both Jefferson and Madison of their precise intent as it pertains to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...ial_assistance

Originally Posted by Marlin T

First off let me point out that communism is not a pro American stance, rather Anti American, anti free trade, you know, everything you stand for. Just calling a spade a spade Alva without the name-calling.

For one, I’m not a communist. I am opposed to communism because a centrally-planned Soviet style economy is anti-democratic and is anti-labor. There’s a reason why Marx tried to have Bakunin arrested and killed.

But what if I were? Communism is an theory of economics. Communists are in favor of a kind of economy. Not a political system, an economy. Now, how is it anti-American to push for ANY kind of economic system be it capitalism, communism, or hell even feudalism? It isn’t calling a spade a spade. It’s baseless name-calling.

Originally Posted by Marlin T

The words Nature, Natures God, Primary law of Nature, The Laws of Nature, Natural Rights, Law of self-preservation, State of Natural Liberty, absolute rights, and so on, that were used repeatedly in numerous documents were first in reference to God.

I think we’ve been going around on this discussion, so I just say that the use of the word “nature” or “natural” eclipsed with reference to any deity does not affirm any Christian deity. It could if you choose it to. It could also refer to a Deist God, or any other kind of God. It is more poetry than a literal reference.

On this, then I suppose all we can do is agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Marlin T

I would highly suggest that you find and read Blackstone’s work. His name and works are still being studied, and quoted in the Supreme Court today. But I doubt that you will as it just might corrupt your communist/atheist agenda.

I read things all the time that I disagree with…including your posts. If I am enough of a masochist to read Atlas Shrugged, then I’m sure I can read Blackstone.

[45nut]

Marlin T,

Ol alva still can't find "separation of church and state" in our constitution. He He

A little good reading:

What Does “Separation of Church and State” Mean?

The current understanding of “separation of church and state”--the view that the state is thoroughly secular and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian--was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. They were friendly to Christianity and encouraged its public practice and expression.

It wasn’t until 1947 that the United States Supreme Court first used the concept of “separation” to isolate government from religion.[ii] In Everson v. Board of Education, the court lifted a phrase from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut. The Court ruled, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another....In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”[iii]

The Infamous Danbury Letter

In the Everson v. Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court quoted Jefferson’s separation language as a normative guideline for understanding the First Amendment. As David Barton points out, “There’s probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by an individual have become the law of the land. Jefferson’s remark now carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other Founder.”[iv]

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a member of the Constitutional Convention, and the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Where did it come from?

On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” His note was meant to quell the fears of the Danbury congregation who were concerned that a national denomination would be established. Here is the text in question:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.[v]

What did Jefferson have in mind here? Is there an impregnable barrier erected by the founders[vi] that excludes religious-minded people from the political process, an ideological enmity between church and state?

The First Amendment

In contrast to the present confusion about separation, the First Amendment is startling in its clarity, offering no limit to the impact of religious and moral conviction of individual citizens on public policy. It is worth reading often. Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please forgive me for stating the obvious: The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people. Jefferson’s wall is a one-way wall. Any religious person, any religious organization, any religious conviction has its place in the public debate. It’s called pluralism in the classic sense.

Notice there are not two distinct provisions here, but one. Non-establishment has no purpose by itself. Freedom of religion is the goal, and non-establishment is the means. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to keep government out of religion’s affairs. This provides for what Steven Monsma calls “positive neutrality.” This view “defines religious freedom in terms of a governmental neutrality toward religion in which no religion is favored over any other, and neither religion nor secularism is favored over each other.”[vii]

The First Amendment was rewritten twelve times to make clear its intent. The concept set forth in the Bill of Rights is “non-establishment,” not isolation. We should strike the “separation” language from our vocabulary.

Separation: Original Intent or Recent Invention?

A Fatal Flaw

The constant appeal to Jefferson’s Danbury letter by hard core separationists reveals a fatal flaw in their approach. Quoting Jefferson’s opinion only matters if Jefferson’s original intent still applies today. If it doesn’t, then the Danbury citation is irrelevant. If it does, then Jefferson’s full views on the issue have merit in this discussion.

It’s clear, though, that the Everson Court used Jefferson’s words, not his ideas. The separation language itself was not in common use at the time. It does not show up in any notes of the Constitutional Convention or of the Congress responsible for the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment.

What was Jefferson’s intent? To show that the Federal government couldn’t establish a national denomination. That’s all. In another letter, this one to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson expanded on his view:

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far is it can be in any human authority.[viii]

This is a stunning revelation for advocates of a Jeffersonian model of separation. According to Jefferson, the Federal Government couldn’t prescribe religious exercise or discipline, but the states could. It wasn’t until 1947 that the Everson Court made the federal provision binding on the states, expressly contrary to Jefferson, though they quoted him for support.

For nearly two centuries state and federal governments have had such a benevolent attitude towards religion in general and Christianity in particular--including the almost universal practice of school prayer--that it would make a 1990s fundamentalist blush.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the very same Congress which enacted the First Amendment, stated the following in Article III: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Notice that religion and morality were equal with knowledge as proper subjects of public education.

All but three states invoke the name of the almighty God in the preambles to their constitutions. Note these examples:

We the people of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

We the people of Alabama...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish...

The people of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government...

If Jefferson’s view of non-establishment mattered today, then dozens of court decisions restricting religious freedom would be annulled. The present notion of separation is not conservative, seeking to return to earlier principles, but activist, seeking to redefine--and liberalize--the past.

Separationists’ Achilles Heel

Separationists attempt to take the Constitutional high ground by quoting Jefferson and others like him. They claim that the founders envisioned a high wall of separation. Recent court decisions simply enforce those original intentions.

Is the “religious right” imposing a new standard favoring religion that undermines our basic Constitutional freedoms, as the L.A. Times ad claimed? You can get to the heart of the matter by asking another question: Do these recent legal actions stop something from being added, or do they remove things already there? They remove them.

Courts have removed prayer from school, crèches from the lawns of city halls, and crosses from public parks. Separationists have managed to get personal Bibles off of teachers’ desks, the Ten Commandments out of school rooms, and references to God eliminated from students’ graduation speeches.

This is their Achilles’ heel: Things can only be removed that were already there to begin with. How did they get there? They were allowed by citizens, legislatures, and courts who saw no harm in them, no intolerance, no danger, and no breech of any Constitutional principle for almost 175 years.

This observation tells us two things. First, from the beginning, religious symbols and religious thought were woven into the fabric of government and society with no sense of Constitutional impropriety. This proves that the new court actions are revisionist, an attempt to change the traditional practice, not a return to our historical and Constitutional roots.

Second, conservatives are in a defensive posture, not an offensive one. The “religious right” has not declared war. The war has been declared on an American way of life held dear to many, and they won’t surrender it without a fight.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5176

[alvagoldbook]

Originally Posted by 45nut

Marlin T,

Ol alva still can't find "separation of church and state" in our constitution. He He

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...ial_assistance