Listen to This

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by sabashimon, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Mar 23, 2008
    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.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  2. RDak

    RDak New Member

    Aug 7, 2008
    Not much would get done would it Terry? ;)
  3. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Mar 23, 2008
    Well you never know what long study and careful consideration will bring. :rolleyes:
  4. RDak

    RDak New Member

    Aug 7, 2008
  5. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX

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

    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
    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

    More good reading. Nuff said. :D :D
  6. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Oct 17, 2007
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    Delta, you know foolishness when you read it. Enough said.


    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.
  7. 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.
  8. sabashimon

    sabashimon New Member

    Oct 26, 2007
    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.
  9. TranterUK

    TranterUK Guest

    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.
  10. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Oct 17, 2007
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    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. .

    Your welcome Shimon. We needed to lighten things up a little anyway...
  11. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX

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

    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
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  12. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    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.

    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.
  13. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Jul 14, 2008
    My apologies. I’ll try to be more concise.

    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?

    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.

    In a way, yes.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  14. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Marlin T,

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

    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.

    Last edited: Sep 5, 2008
  15. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Jul 14, 2008
  16. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    You know, I have a book sitting on my shelf called "The Heritage Guide to The Constitution," and interestingly enough not once does it cite Wikipedia. If you took some time to read something like Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America you could learn a lot. Sure it's a biased book, but you could get real simple and just read the Constitution itself... I know it has some big words, but none of them are "separation of church and state".
  17. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Jul 14, 2008
    I don't know of any book looking at any historical concept ever citing any encyclopedia. That is why encyclopedias have these neat little things called REFERENCES. Wikipedia has REFERENCES too. Isn't that the damnest thing?
  18. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Hey Richard,

    Is that the only part of my post you read? And when are you going to understand that wikipedia is not a trusted source? If you read the rest of my post above you might learn something. Oh, sorry.... liberals don't need any more information, since what they don't know they make up and put into a wikipedia page. :D

    Thanks Vladimir,

    I was getting tired beating this old horse all by myself. :D
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2008
  19. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    separation clause”, I know that I already posted this but in case Alva missed it.

    Especially beings that the link Alva provided does not use the entire article.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2008
  20. Enough is enough. Alva trolling is not acceptable behavior on TFF, and neither is disrespecting other members.

    Nighty night, have a nice life.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Obama says: "You're not listening" Jan 27, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Who are you listening too? What RADIO programs? Oct 25, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Listen to this Mar 24, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Good Advice - Will Anyone Listen Mar 29, 2005

Share This Page