War on Christmas
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUFirst of all, Stop The ACLU got a full page, color ad in the Washington Times. If you haven't seen it yet, you can do so HERE. Every year we have come to expect the ACLU to wage war on Christmas. Just recently, the ADF won a victory for a school threatened by the ACLU over a nativity scene. The ACLU have created an environment that has spread like a virus across the nation. The far left have taken the politically correct ball and ran with it. They have redefined in their own minds, and in the minds of many Americans that "all inclusive" means "excluding" Christianity. The environment the ACLU have created through threatening tactics across the years have made many schools proactive. In order to avoid lawsuits, some schools straight out banned the C word. This year, however, legal groups are being preemptive. The Alliance Defense Fund has even devoted a website, and offered free legal advice to any who feel they are being censored this year. A backlash is happening this year as the American people are making their voices known. Wal-Mart felt the backlash, and backed off the politically correct exclusion of the word Christmas after being threatened with a boycott. Boston set off a furor this week when it officially renamed a giant tree erected in a city park a “holiday tree” instead of a “Christmas tree.” The Capitol officially returned to calling it a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree. Lowes also dumped the "holiday" reference after public outcry. One Michagan family was told they could not display a nativity scene on their own lawn. After being threatened with fines if they did not remove it, they contacted the Thomas More Law Center, and were victorious in standing up for their rights.Bill O'Reilly is leading the charge on his show, featuring the secularization of Christmas. John Gibson, also of FOX news has even written a book about it. They are not alone, bloggers are reacting too. California Conservative has teamed up with us, and created a petition to support Christmas. Stop The ACLU is providing Christmas decorations for your blog. Kevin McCullough is asking his readers to send the ACLU Christmas cards.Across the nation, people are standing up to the ACLU. In Georgia, legislators are proposing a bill that would allow counties to freely display historical documents “without threat from the ACLU. The Louisiana Legislature has approved a resolution urging Congress to pass the Constitution Restoration Act, a bill that would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God “as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.” Under the bill, any judge who violates the proposed rule by making “extrajurisdictional” decisions will have committed an offense that is grounds for impeachment. Representative Hostettler has introduced legislation to the House that would limit attorney fees in Establishment Clause cases to injunctive relief only. We have a petition set up asking Congress to stop taxpayer funding for the ACLU. Stand up, and fight the ACLU. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
By Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson FrontPageMagazine.com | December 29, 2004 While public officials, schools, and the ACLU worked overtime this year to ban every vestige of Christmas from the public square, the recently invented holiday known as Kwanzaa is gaining in popularity among black Americans. These occurrences are not unrelated. In an earlier time, blacks held a strong faith in God. But over the past 40 years, the black community has largely let God slip away. Sure the community has maintained the outer trappings of religion, but the solid morality at its core is nearly gone. Enter a God-hating black racist named Ron Karenga. Born Ron Everett on a poultry farm in Maryland, Everett invented Kwanzaa in 1966, based on an African harvest festival (though it takes place during the Winter Solstice!), and celebrating the first Kwanzaa with his family and friends. Calling himself “Maulana” (Swahili for “Master Teacher”), Karenga became a black nationalist at UCLA, and formed his group, the United Slaves (US) for the purpose of igniting a “cultural revolution” among American blacks. US members followed Karenga’s “Path of Blackness,” which is detailed in his Quotable Karenga: “The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black.” The United Slaves had violent confrontations with the Black Panthers on campus, and were actually considered more radical than the Panthers. The biggest dispute between the United Slaves and the Panthers was for the leadership of the new African Studies Department at UCLA, with each group backing a different candidate. Panthers John Jerome Huggins and Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter verbally attacked Karenga at the meeting, which infuriated Karenga’s followers. After the meeting ended, two United Slaves members, George and Larry Stiner, reportedly confronted Huggins and Carter in a hallway, shooting and killing them. Incidentally, on March 31, 1974, it was discovered that both Stiner brothers had escaped from the family visiting area in San Quentin State Prison. Larry Stiner turned himself into the FBI in Caracas, Venezuela, on December 13, 1994. He remains in custody at San Quentin. But George Stiner remains at large and his whereabouts remain unknown. He is currently on California’s 10 Most Wanted List. The shooting at UCLA apparently caused Karenga to become extremely suspicious. On May 9, 1970, Karenga and two others tortured two women who Karenga believed had tried to poison him by placing “crystals” in his food and water. The Los Angeles Times described the events: “Deborah Jones, who once was given the title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electric cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes at gunpoint. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis’ mouth and placed against Miss Davis’ face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vice. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.” Karenga was sentenced to one-to-ten years in prison on counts of felonious assault and false imprisonment. At his trial, the question arose as to Karenga’s sanity. The psychiatrist’s report stated: “This man now represents a picture which can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and illusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment.” The psychiatrist reportedly observed that Karenga talked to his blanket and imaginary persons, and he believed he’d been attacked by dive-bombers. Eight years later, California State University Long Beach named Karenga the head of its Black Studies Department. By this time, Karenga had “repented” of his black nationalism and had become just a harmless garden variety Marxist. This must be our esteemed university system’s idea of repentance! Karenga’s Kwanzaa celebration consists of seven “principles.” They are Umoja (unity), Kujichagulia (self-determination – code for “buy black”), Ujima (collective work and responsibility – groupthink), Ujamaa (cooperative economics – socialism), Nia (purpose) Kuumba (creativity), and Imani (faith – in man, not God). To provide a symbol of his seven “principles,” Karenga used the menorah from Judaism with Kwanzaa’s colors (red, black, and green), and re-named it the "kinara." Karenga also created a Kwanzaa flag that consists of black, green, and red. The Kwanzaa Information Center states the color red represents blood: “We lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race.” The Kwanzaa Information Center also notes that this flag “has become a symbol of devotion for African people in America to establish an independent African nation on the North American Continent.” (Emphasis added.) When once asked why he designed Kwanzaa to take place around Christmas, Karenga explained, “People think it’s African, but it’s not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of bloods would be partying.” Karenga has explained that his creation of Kwanzaa was motivated in part by hostility toward both Christianity and Judaism. Writing in his 1980 book Kawaida Theory, he claimed that Western religion “denies and diminishes human worth, capacity, potential and achievement. In Christian and Jewish mythology, humans are born in sin, cursed with mythical ancestors who’ve sinned and brought the wrath of an angry God on every generation’s head.” He clearly opposed belief in God and other “spooks who threaten us if we don’t worship them and demand we turn over our destiny and daily lives.” Through ignorance or racism, growing numbers of black Christians are either celebrating Kwanzaa or incorporating it into their Christmas celebrations. Now many preachers are incorporating Kwanzaa into their messages. This is a horrible mistake. First of all, as we’ve seen, the whole holiday is made up! You won’t find its roots in Africa or anywhere else. Second, Kwanzaa’s “principles” are straight from Hell. Third, and most importantly, Christians who celebrate or incorporate Kwanzaa are moving their attention away from Christmas, the birth of our Savior, and the simple message of salvation: love for God through his Son. To add or subtract from that message is evil. In recent years Kwanzaa has become increasingly popular and mainstream. President Bill Clinton commemorated Kwanzaa, stating that Kwanzaa’s seven principles “ring true not only for African-Americans, but also for all Americans…bring[ing] new purpose to our daily lives.” In 2002, President Bush, though a devout Christian, also commemorated Kwanzaa. The U.S. Postal Service issued a Kwanzaa stamp in 1997; the Smithsonian Institution sponsors an annual celebration; and greeting card companies churn out Kwanzaa cards for profit. It is now clear that Kwanzaa is a phony, wicked holiday created by an ex-con who hates God, Christians, Jews, and blacks – yes blacks. Why else would he try to pull them away from Christianity and indoctrinate them in racialism and socialism? Blacks, particularly black Christians, need to stand up for Christmas and reject Kwanzaa. If they refuse, they will be helping to stamp out the true meaning of Christmas, and allowing evil to have its way in America. This is a future we cannot allow. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is the Founder and President of BOND (the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, www.bondinfo.org). He is also the author of the book “SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America”. For more information, please call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or e-mail bond@bondinfo.org.
Nov 27, 2005 by Doug Giles What the heck is up with all the Merry Christmasphobia? Especially within our Public School system where during this season they outlaw certain flowers, ban particular colors, prohibit the display of Santa’s image, bar Christmas trees and tie their tongues in knots trying to rename Christmas? Isn’t it odd that the Public School Admin wizards get their support hose wedgied regarding Christmas, all the while they seem to be extremely zealous about teaching our 1st -12th graders everything and more than what they need to know about sex? Yeah, they’re cool with adding a fourth “R,” namely raunch, to the three basic “R’s” of education. It appears to be no problemo to teach our young’uns how to masturbate, and school officials seem to be pretty breezy about hosting gay and lesbian clubs; but darn iit, you’d better not wear red and green, bring a poinsettia to your teacher, have a baby Jesus lying in a manger, whistle “Silent Night” or have a Santa Claus sticker on your notebook because that . . . that . . . is beyond the pale. At least it is ever since the ACLU began contorting the Constitution like a mad Mike Tyson twisting his Gumby doll. The Christmasphobia seems to have seeped outside of the Pubic Fool System and has also hit the streets. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve got to think for 30 to 40 seconds about how I am to wish one well during the Christmas season for fear that the ACLU will send some soulless lawyer to my house to sue me because of an insensitive greeting. Before, I just used to say, “Merry Christmas.” Now, I have to do CIA-like profiling trying to figure out what religion said person is before I launch a holiday howdy. Are they Christian? Muslim? Satanist? Atheist? Do they look like they have enough money to take legal action against me if I get the greeting wrong and they become deeply wounded by my well wish? It’s madness. To remedy the situation, now I just blow off saying anything aside from, “Wassup?” Not only has this new found phobia regarding the Yuletide infected our dysfunctional schools and hamstrung our greetings in the streets, it’s also crept into retail where stores like Target put a moratorium on everything to do with Christmas, including giving the Salvation Army the boot. Hey, Grinch-like Targetmeisters, the multiple millions of us here in Hooville are going to be buying our cheap stuff somewhere else this Christmas season. So, Happy Festivus, Target, and I hope your profits and stock don’t tumble too dramatically as we take our business elsewhere. I wonder how long it’s going to be before the anti-war morons move to prohibit Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day because they are offended at the thought of honoring those who fought for and those who died for our country. With all the PC stuff swirling around in the secular toilet bowl of our school systems, one can be paralyzed as to what he can and can’t do, what he can and can’t say. Herewith, my brethren, is a simple guide regarding what you’re allowed to say and do without going to jail, or being fined millions of dollars, or getting expelled or fired, or being executed in the public square. The following bullet points were ripped out of Alan Sears and Craig Osten’s book, The ACLU vs. America, with some obvious ad lib from me. 1 It is still okay to sing Christmas carols in public schools by individuals or groups. So queue up a few of them for your holiday extravaganza, because this doesn’t violate the Constitution. [Someone help me here: When did the Constitution become so fragile and so easily offended? When did it go from being a rough and tumble framing document to being a delicate thesis written on single ply?] Hey Christmas lover, don’t worry if Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Stupid says they’re going to sue if you don’t cease and desist from singing “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing,” as public schools have been very successful at keeping the ACLU at bay when they seek to silence the Christmas songs in the school system. 2 It’s okay for schools to call Christmas “Christmas.” You can actually call the break during December the “Christmas Holiday.” You don’t have to call it “Sparkle Day,” “Solstice Holidays,” or “Reindeer Weekend.” Calling Christmas “Christmas” doesn’t offend the newly tenderized Constitution. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the government has long recognized holidays with religious significance such as Christmas. 3 School districts can’t ban individuals or teachers from saying “Merry Christmas.” The Supreme Court has stated that students and teachers do not have to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” In order to flout the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, teachers would have to use their authority to promote religion to their students. 4 Schools can teach about the religious origins of Christmas. The religious and cultural origins and history of Christmas can be studied without wounding the Constitution. Even when limiting public Christmas displays, the Supreme Court has said that “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion and the like.” 5 Schools may display religious symbols, such as Nativity scenes. The Supreme Court has held that a nativity scene is constitutional if it is displayed for legitimate secular purposes, such as to celebrate a holiday or depict the origins of a holiday, such as Christmas. Y’know, there’s probably just a very few people who are popping a blood vein in their foreheads and spouting this anti-Christmas rhetoric. More than likely they aren’t the constitutionalists they’ve propped themselves up to be, but rather, failed actors who couldn’t get extra work on B-flicks who have found a way to get in front of a TV camera by being a jerk. What’s the matter? Did mommy not pay enough attention to you when you were little? Did she miss your 3rd grade Christmas play when you starred as Blitzen, and so now you hate Christmas and you want to get her back while making us all pay in the process? Furthermore, if some citizens want to Ichabod Crane themselves away from our holiday cheer, I say let ‘em. Yes, we could even create a city for them where they can go and live their secularized dream life, perhaps somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area or somewhere around Boston. We could call this religiously-scrubbed, Lysol-disinfected place, “I’mapaininthebuttville,” and there they could have their sterile, religion-free environment and celebrate . . . nothing. And lastly, secularists, please . . . don’t flatter yourselves by thinking that our celebrating Christ’s birthday is an effort to convert you. Relax. We’re not trying to evangelize anyone. This, like so many other things, is not about you. We simply want to pause and recognize the birth of the most powerful figure in our world’s history, namely, Jesus Christ. It’s all about Him. Doug Giles is the creator and host of "The Clash" radio shows and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com. Linked at Stop the ACLU
Thanksgiving Stop The ACLU Blogburst
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUThere is much to be thankful for this season. Most of all I am thankful to God, and my family. I hope everyone is enjoying this holiday, and spending time with their families. I put this up the night before Thanksgiving, because I will be taking the day off from blogging, and spending it with my family. In the fight against the ACLU, there are many things to be thankful for. I am thankful for the 133 blogs that have joined our blogburst, and devote at least one day each week to fighting the ACLU. I am thankful that for organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund who are fighting the ACLU for religion in public life. Alan Sears, the president of ADF has even written a book about it, ACLU Vs. America. Alan has appeared on O'Reilly and let the public know about the ACLU's perversion of the Constitution, and for that, I am thankful. I am also thankful that they will be at the forefront in protecting Christmas this year. I am thankful for the ACLJ. They are out there fighting the ACLU too. They have backed the City of Las Cruces, and many other small towns over religious expression. They have fought for the free speech of pro-life demonstrators, when the ACLU were nowhere to be found. I am thankful for that. The ACLJ have also fought hard against the ACLU's attack against the Boyscouts, and for that I am also thankful. I am thankful for freedom, and to our military that protects it. I know that many out there believe it is the ACLU who protect our freedom, but they are actually America's number one religious censor. It is our men and women who put on their uniforms each day, that leave their families back home, and go off to foreign lands to fight for liberation, and freedom. And even they are not immune to the ACLU's attacks. I'm am thankful to all our vets out there. Groups like the American Legion are vital components in the fight against the ACLU. I am thankful for Congressmen and Representatives that have the guts to fight the ACLU. Many Congressmen have stood up for the Boyscouts. Representative Hostettler introduced the Public Expression of Religion Act to the House that seeks to limit attorney's fees to injunctive relief only in Establishment Clause cases. The cases the ACLU love the most. The American Legion has gotten behind this legislation, and many other organizations included us have put together a petition for it. The Center For Reclaiming America's petition recieved over 100,000 people backing it. For all of this, I am thankful. I am thankful for the grace of God on our great Country. The secularists, through the Courts can take God out of the pledge or maybe even off our money, but they can't take God out of the heart of America. Thank God for that. There are many reasons to fight the ACLU, and I am thankful that we are making progress. The ACLU will continue its attempts to rewrite our history, but its good to know that there will be people out there to fight it. The more the public becomes aware of the ACLU's agenda, the more people will fight it, and I am also thankful for that. I am thankful for my family, and all the support they give to me. There is a lot to be thankful for. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
by David Barton
The tradition of Thanksgiving as a time to focus on God and His blessings dates back almost four centuries in America. While such celebrations occurred at Cape Henry Virginia as early as 1607, it is from the Pilgrims that we derive the current tradition of Thanksgiving.
The Pilgrims left England on September 6, 1620, and for two months braved the harsh elements of a storm-tossed sea. After disembarking at Plymouth Rock, they had a prayer service and began building hasty shelters, but unprepared for a harsh New England winter, nearly half died before spring.
Yet persevering in prayer, and assisted by helpful Indians, they reaped a bountiful harvest the following summer. The grateful Pilgrims then declared a three-day feast in December 1621 to thank God and to celebrate with their Indian friends — America’s first Thanksgiving Festival. This began an annual tradition in the New England Colonies that slowly spread into other Colonies.
The first national Thanksgiving occurred in 1789. According to the Congressional Record for September 25 of that year, immediately after approving the Bill of Rights:
Mr. Elias Boudinot said he could not think of letting the congressional session end without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:
"Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer. . . . Mr. Roger Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving not only as a praiseworthy one in itself but also as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ. . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion."
The resolution was delivered to President George Washington who heartily concurred with the congressional request, declaring:
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . . Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1789 . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.
National Thanksgiving Proclamations occurred sporadically following this one, and most official Thanksgiving observances still occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of an annual national Thanksgiving may be attributed to Mrs. Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For thirty years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting President after President until Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November, declaring:
We often forget the Source from which the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies come. . . . No human wisdom hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God. . . . I therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States . . . to observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.
For the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. Then, in 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.
As you celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday this year, remember to retain the original gratefulness to God that has always been the spirit of this, the oldest of all American holidays.
Congress recommends a day of . . . thanksgiving and praise so that the people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts . . . and join . . . their prayers that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to forgive our sins and . . . to enlarge His kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Continental Congress, 1777 --Written by Signers of the Declaration Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee)
I appoint . . . a day of public Thanksgiving to Almighty God. . . to ask Him that He would . . . pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers of the Gospel; that He would . . . spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; . . . and that He would establish these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue. (Governor Thomas Jefferson, 1779)
I. . . appoint . . . a day of public thanksgiving and praise . . . to render to God the tribute of praise for His unmerited goodness towards us . . . by giving to us . . . the Holy Scriptures which are able to enlighten and make us wise to eternal salvation. . . . And to pray that He would forgive our sins and . . . cause the religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the people of the earth. (Governor John Hancock, 1790)
Heres hoping that you and yours have a happy Thanksgiving!
by David Barton
Revisionism is the common method employed by those seeking to subvert American culture and society. The dictionary defines revisionism as an “advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine; especially a revision of historical events and movements.”
Revisionism attempts to alter the way a people views its history and traditions in order to cause that people to accept a change in public policy. For example, during the 150 years that textbooks described the Founding Fathers as being devout men and Christians who actively practiced their faith, civic policy embraced and welcomed public religious expressions. But in recent years as the same Founders have come to be portrayed as atheists, agnostics, and deists who were opposed to religious activities, public policies have similarly been reversed.
Revisionists generally accomplish their goal of rewriting history by:
Underemphasizing or ignoring the aspects of American history they deem to be politically incorrect and overemphasizing those portions they find acceptable;
Vilifying the historical figures who embraced a position they reject; and
Concocting the appearance of widespread historical approval for the social policy they are attempting to advance.
There are many means that are used by revisionists to accomplish these goals but the most common include:
1. Patent Untruths
Numerous history texts make claims such as: our “national government was secular from top to bottom,” or that the Founders “reared a national government on a secular basis.” Those who have studied the American Founding know that this is a patent untruth — proved by numbers of Founders, including John Adams, who declared: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” (Even the text of the Declaration of Independence refutes any charges of government secularism.) This approach usually relies on a general lack of public knowledge about that untruth; consequently, such untruthful claims are rarely made in areas where citizens have broad general knowledge (such as claiming that James Madison used an atomic bomb to end the Civil War, or that the first sub-machine gun was developed in 1536 in Nevada by the Quakers). Revisionism relies on a lack of citizen knowledge in specific areas.
2. Overly Broad Generalizations
This revisionist tool presents the exception as if it were the rule. For example, texts often name Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine as proof of the lack of religiosity among the Founders yet fail to mention the rest of the almost 200 Founding Fathers — including the dozens of Founders who not only received their education in schools specializing in the training of ministers of the Gospel but who also were active in Christian ministry and organizations (e.g., John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman, et. al).
Similarly, when discussing religion in America, the Salem Witch trials are universally presented; but rarely mentioned are the positive societal changes produced by Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and dozen of other religious groups and organizations that worked for the abolition of slavery, secured religious freedoms for all, and fought to end societal abuses of all types. (Also never mentioned is that the American witch trials resulted in some two dozen deaths — and were halted by religious leaders, while the European witch trials resulted in 100,000; that is, American Christianity at that time might not have been perfect but it was light years ahead of both the Christianity practiced in Europe and the European secularism that resulted in 40,000 executions in the French Revolution.)
3. Omission
Notice the following three examples from American history works:
We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick. MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? . . . I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death? PATRICK HENRY, 1775
. . . ART. I.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1783
What was omitted from these important historical quotes?
We whose names are under-written having undertaken[ for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia] do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?[ Forbid it, Almighty God!] I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death?
[ In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts ]. . . ART. I.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . .
The omitted segments are those that indicate the strongly religious nature of American government documents and leaders. Also regularly omitted from texts is the fact that gratitude to God was central to the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving — and the fact that in 1782, the Congress of the United States was responsible for America's first English-language Bible; and that in 1800, Congress voted that on Sundays, the Capitol Building would serve as a church building and that by 1867, the largest protestant church in America was the one that met inside the U. S. Capitol; etc.
4. A Lack of Primary Source References
The avoidance of primary-source documents is characteristic in revisionism. For example, the authors of the widely-used text The Godless Constitution blatantly announce that they have “dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes” when discussing the documentation for their thesis that America’s government is built on a secular foundation. Similarly, the text The Search for Christian America purports to examine the Founding Era and finds a distinct lack of Christian influence. Yet 80 percent of the “historical sources” on which it relies to document its finding were published after 1950! That is, to determine what was occurring in the 1700s, they quote from works printed in the 1900s.
Summary
To locate revisionism in a text, look at its tone, the documents it presents, and the heroes it elevates.
1. To discover a revisionist tone, find the answers to these questions in the textbook: Is exploration and colonization motivated only by the desire for land or gold? Are those who promoted religious and moral values portrayed as harsh, punitive, and intolerant? Is traditional family ignored? Is government presented as statist — that is, that the state (rather than individuals, families, churches, or communities) is to take care of society's needs? Is there a victim ideology — a steady diet of those who have been exploited throughout history rather than those who have uplifted their culture? Are other religions portrayed positively and Christianity negatively (if at all)?
2. Are original documents presented? (Do students see the actual text or only what someone else says about it?) Do they see the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, George Washington's “Farewell Address,” and Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address? Are the documents heavily edited to present only a sentence or two or do they provide a substantive amount of text?
3. Who are the heroes presented? Do they tend to be angry - fighting an unjust society or government? Do they tend to be modern heroes only? Do they tend to be only secular leaders? For example, the U. S. Capitol displays some 100 statues of the most important individuals in America's history; a significant percentage of those statues are of ministers and Christian leaders. Will your children receive in their textbooks at least the same view of American heroes that is presented in America's pre-eminent government building?
When examining a text, always remember that your children do not know as much about history as you do and consequently have no basis for identifying bias. Therefore, examine each text as if you knew nothing at all about history except what is presented in that text; on that basis, will you be pleased with the tone toward America inculcated in your child through that text? If not, then urge your school to get a better text or be diligent to supplement for your children what is missing or wrongly presented in the text.
It is not melodramatic to state that America's future rests on what is taught to our children, for as Abraham Lincoln wisely observed:
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. (attributed)
Famous American educator Noah Webster therefore rightly admonished:
The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. . . . [It] lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.
Indeed!
9th Circus Court
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUWhile we mainly focus on the ACLU over at Stop The ACLU,we feel obligated to keep everyone aware of other issues as well, especially judicial activism. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the main Courts at the lead in this area. One of the judges that sit on this Court is Stephen Reinhardt. Many conservatives think that he is THE most dangerous judge in the country. He is literally married to the Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU, Romona Riptston. There is little doubt that Michael Newdow will do his best to have his most recent case against "In God We Trust" on the money heard by Rienhardt. The 9th Circuit have given us controversial rulings such as the phrase, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. They then turn around and rule that teaching children to be Muslims is O.K. One ruling in particular has gotten many folks up in arms. Recently the 9th Circus has ruled that schools can teach children about sex, and that parents have no right to protest it. As a matter of fact their ruling was a blanket decision that pretty much stated that parents have no rights whatsoever on what their children are taught in public schools. Family advocate, James Dobson said, “I think that’s one of the most frightening examples of judicial tyranny that has come down.” Dobson called the 9th Circuit “the most out-of-control, imperious, unelected, unaccountable court in the country. Dobson is not the only one that is concerned. Seven members of the House of Representatives set aside time to express outrage and say they’re not going to take it anymore. Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn says changes must be made.
“It is time to break the 9th Circuit apart. It is time to be certain that we address the activism that is taking place on the judicial bench in this country.” The House has actually even passed a resolution asking the 9th Circuit to rehear this case. The resolution (H. Res. 547), sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., passed by a vote of 320-91. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the 9th Circus is one of the most dangerous Courts in the Nation. So, I am happy to reprint this email I got today. Hello,
I would like to address our case before the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals, and the decision by Judge Stephen Reinhardt that parents have no constitutional right to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual, or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so. The case before them is Fields vs. The Palmdale school district. This case stemmed from a sex survey given to 1st, 3rd and 5th grade students at Mesquite Elementary School three years ago. My son was one of them. He is in high school now and I believe he is still adversely affected by this incident.
On Nov. 16 The House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 547, introduced by Congressman Tim Murphy (PA-18), calling for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear Fields v. Palmdale. The resolution passed by the House declares “the fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children is firmly grounded in the Nation’s Constitution and traditions,” the 9th Circuit undermined such right, and the Court should rehear the case and reverse its decision.
Please, we need more public help on this, more now than ever before. I created a website to raise awareness and garner support from the people. It is 9thcircus.com please visit this website and buy a lapel pin and show your support for our cause. Everyone needs to write or call their Representative or Congressperson or contact The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals and tell them that parents’ rights are deeply imbedded in the tradition and constitution of The United States and they cannot be removed by a stroke of the pen by Judge Reinhardt.
We do a good interview. Tammany has been on CNN, The Today Show, MSNBC, and is being scheduled for Fox News. What I would ask from you is a reciprocal link to your website. Please tell me if this would be possible. This would be a great opportunity to spread the word.
Thank you,
Jim Fields Absolutely Jim! Your website has been added to our resources! Everyone go take a visit.
Pat Boone: Why Hollywood is leftist
WorldNetDaily - 11/19/05 Pat Boone
In the publicity build-up to Arianna Huffington's launch of her ambitious new Huffingtonpost celebrity bloggers website, I thought it revealing to see that the default assumption in the mainstream reporting on it was that Hollywood bloggers would be liberals.
The New York Times report said, "The site is likely to start as a watering hole for liberals." Variety reported, "Huffington is wisely confining her site mostly to politics. It's safer, after all, for liberals to bash the government than Hollywood."
It has become just a given. People speak of our town as being exclusively populated by liberals. It isn't (and please count me alongside Chuck Heston, Mel Gibson and many other conservatives here), but non-liberals in Hollywood usually seem conspicuous or, if not yet secure in their stardom, stealthy.
For years, great minds the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved have mused over what causes Hollywood's leftward political tilt, but they have never quite nailed it. So, let this fool rush in with a theory here.
I haven't seen anyone offer this elsewhere. My intent is not to scorn – as in "liberalism is a mental disorder" or any of that – but to ponder things coolly from the close-up vantage point of an entertainer who's resided the same jogging distance from Sunset Strip since 1960. If I win more disdain from the liberals I dwell amongst, I expect it will be because my theory makes them uncomfortable, and attacking me as judgmental will serve them better than attacking my judgment.
The mystery of why Hollywood is so left-liberal does have a solution. Let's ponder the obvious: Hollywood is a place where people come from near and far to devote themselves to the pursuit of conspicuous public career accomplishment. These individuals, perhaps even to their credit, do believe in themselves as exceptional, or at least believe in the exceptional worthiness of their aspirations. Each of them reflects a remarkable choice or ability to give higher priority to making it big eventually than to providing financial stability here and now.
Unless you're a lucky heir or beneficiary of someone else's money, to live your young adult life willing to wait tables and perform unpaid in showcases or work on music or film productions "on spec," you must put aside the focus on financial stability that more traditional young adults practice in their family-formative years.
If you live this "on spec" lifestyle for many years, the value you place on making it big in the future must compete with any idea of family stability in the present. Duty to things like children or in-laws would distract from your needed obsessiveness with showbiz "prospecting."
So, Hollywood ends up being home to disproportional numbers of the more self-absorbed, who lack a bit in the way of family bonds and often "have a problem with commitment" in their personal lives.
Being more narcissistic and less family-involved than most citizens is a difficult (if not much pondered) fact of life for folks in this community. As long as it remains un-cool to be a narcissist, and as long as homo sapiens remain a family-organized species, they have a problem.
Ah, but Hollywood does have its remedy: It's long been to cultivate a standardized "I love you" posture toward any audiences, fans and peers you have, while you substitute a high-minded universal "community" consciousness for the missing family component in your personal life. This way, you provide yourself cover from seeming narcissistic or unrelated. Inherent in this remedy is (mystery solved) a political left turn.
The collective "we" so reflexively embraced in Hollywood naturally welcomes something of a nanny state. If it's a problem to have neither the means nor the time to provide the best for your children, why not have the government do it?
Family values are more negotiable if you don't value family a heck of a lot more than you value conspicuous public career accomplishment. So, merging the duties of individuals and families into those of politicians and governments makes easy sense.
And to favor such collective caring lets you avoid feeling yourself not a fully functional community member. You can feel like an altruist, not a narcissist.
A Hollywood so populated with citizens committed more to personal biographical accomplishment than to family turns out to be a Hollywood known for its leftish politics. This should mystify us only if we ignore the universal human need to be sure of membership in community, perhaps tribe, and above all else, family. The human animal, as the anthropologists say, is social. When its need for family gets compromised or repressed, as it does routinely in Hollywood, it comforts the human animal to get more socialistic.
Richard Mullenax
December 8, 2004
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the most dangerous legal organization in America today.
The ACLU demands that homosexual tolerance-training be required in certain schools or else lawsuits will follow. Not only does the ACLU want women to have the choice to have an abortion under any circumstance, but it wants the rights to be extended to the age of fourteen and without parental consent. It also demands oral sex training be taught in schools while calling abstinence a dangerous practice.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said:
"Today's report offers concrete evidence that abstinence-only sex education curriculums are all too often based on ideology and religion rather than science. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of parents want their children to get all the information they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including information about contraception, how to use condoms properly, and about abortion. The government needs to stop censoring lifesaving information."
Abstinence doesn't save lives? Well it does, but it might have some religious context to it, according to the ACLU, so that makes abstinence "dangerous." Did the ACLU ever stop and think that giving sexual tools and instructions to kids to use will actually increase dangerous sexual activity? Sex is never a 100% safeguarded against sexual diseases or unwanted pregnancies.
The ACLU is always finding new ways to outrage traditional America. This month, the ACLU's biggest focus is censoring Christmas, a national holiday. The ACLU is clamping down on school districts, trying to deter them from promoting Christmas in any way. No Christmas tree, no carol singing, and by no means, any mention of the name of Jesus Christ.
The ACLU says that we cannot publicly celebrate our own national holiday unlike Halloween or Thanksgiving, which is celebrated in public schools without much prejudice.
The ACLU believes that Christmas offends the beliefs of non-Christians. Yet homosexuality doesn't impose on other people's values? How biased can one organization be? Not even Ramadan or Hanukah were discriminated against by the ACLU last year.
In the First Amendment, it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. "
If the leaders of the ACLU ever took the time to find out why this phrase was there, then maybe they would reform its views.
England, the country that the colonists came from, had only one church and it was the Anglican Church or the Church of England. All others were illegal. King Henry the Eighth had a falling out with the Catholic Church some years back over a divorce issue and outlawed the Catholic Church. He established the Anglican Church and allowed no others to exist.
Our forefathers saw this as religious tyranny, and some groups like the Quakers came to America to escape from religious persecution. One of the fundamental principles laid down by the founding fathers was the concept of religious freedom, without repercussions from the government.
Today, it has been bastardized into the popular notion that religion (especially Christianity) has no place in our society or in any public forum. It is ironic that the laws of this nation are based upon the laws laid down in the Ten Commandments.
Some Christians are fighting back. People in the "Public Advocate of the United States" will sing Christmas carols at noon on December 8 in front of the ACLU office building in Washington, D.C. But they are not alone in this fight. In Maplewood, New Jersey, parents of the Columbia High School brass ensemble, are fighting for their rights to sing Christmas carols at the school's holiday concert. Since the ACLU will not defend the students' rights, Attorney Demetrios Stratis, affiliated with the conservative civil liberties group Alliance Defense Fund, will do so.
Let the battle for Christmas begin.
ACLU's War on National Security
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUIn conjunction with the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the ACLU has lobbied hard against Arab-profiling at airports for years. “Profiles are notoriously under-inclusive,” says ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim. “Who knows who the next terrorist will appear as? It could be a grandmother. It could be a student. We just don’t know.”Source The airline industry’s fear of such lawsuits is based on solid historical precedent. In 1993, for instance, the ACLU joined forces with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) to sue Pan American World Airways for having detained a man of Iranian descent during the first Persian Gulf War. So, the ACLU says political correctness trumps common sense. They block that route of securing ourselves from being blown up. What to do? Hmmm.. I've got it! Lets do random searches! ACLU Files Suit Over Random Subway Searches.The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the New York chapter of the ACLU, has announced that they intend on filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan today. The suit claims that the random bag searches before boarding the subway system is unconstitutional. City lawyers have noted that an al-Qaida training manual advising terrorists to avoid police checkpoints gives the city some justification for its random searches of bags entering the subway system. Ok, so the ACLU says no profiled searches, and no random searches. What about searches across the board? Nope. Raymond James Stadium tried it, and the ACLU sued. So, where does that leave us with searches? I think we can conclude that the ACLU are against all searches. Is this because they stand by the principle of the fourth amendment? The irony and hypocrisy here is that, the NYCLU HQ has a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. Apparantly their war against searches is not based on principle. But searches are not the only that brings criticism on the ACLU on the topic of National Security. The ACLU and CAIR have actually taken up quite a number of cases together. In 2003, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU awarded its yearly “Liberty Flame Award” to the Ohio chapter of CAIR “for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties.” This same Ohio chapter, in August of this year, refused contributions from the United Way, as to not complete a required counterterrorism compliance form. But it isn't isolated to one rouge chapter. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of it’s most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
“The Ford Foundation now bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state.”
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity. What is this all about? Although its website proclaims that it does not receive “any government funding,” it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU’s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.)
Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU “does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on” government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism.
Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.
But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.Source So what did they do? Well, at first they decided they would try to trick the government. They decided to keep the money, AND keep hiring anyone they pleased, by what Nadine Strossen called a “clever interpretation.” Their solution was that if they remained ignorant of who was on the list, then they couldn’t “knowingly” hire anyone on the list. Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, tells the New York Times: “I’ve printed [the lists] out. I’ve never consulted them.” To make a long story short, when The New York Times outted them, they caved in. But they didn’t cave in to the government, they just decided to forgoe the money, so they could still ignorantly hire people on the government watchlist. Isn’t that nice? However, this isn't the end. The American Civil Liberties Union and 12 other national non-profit organizations successfully challenged Office of Personnel Management’s Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirements that all participating charities check their employees and expenditures against several government watch lists for “terrorist activities” and that organizations certify that they do not contribute funds to organizations on those lists. This is something the ACLU finds worthy of celebrating. In my opinion this is reason to be suspicious of what the ACLU does with its funds. It isn't a far fetched idea to wonder if the ACLU uses its funds to support terrorism. The ACLU's history is tainted in this arena. In 1985 Samuel L. Morrison, an employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Command was convicted and sentenced for stealing classified spy satellite photographs from his office, cutting off the “secret” designation and selling them to a foreign publication. The ACLU claimed that Morrison had the right to steal and sell these classified documents and the under the First Amendment. Positions like these might be easier to understand if we look at ACLU Policy #117. They title this policy “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies”. ”
Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluating foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations. Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by eliminating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.
Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries. Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records….” The ACLU Defends the P.L.O.“I’m afraid even the good guys on civil liberties are going to be against us on this one.” Those are the words of ACLU Executive director Ira Glasser on the ACLU’s decision to represent an agent of Yassir Araftat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.
I wonder if his definition of “good guys” meant American citizens who care about their country and are not willing to grant sworn terrorists complete freedom within our borders. If so, he is absolutely correct. We are against that one.
“Arafat’s group of ruthless murderers had set up an “information office” in Washington D.C, only a few blocks from the White House. The ACLU Defends "Mad Dog" of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi.“In 1985, the ACLU learned of an alleged plan by the CIA to engineer Qaddafi’s overthrow. Outraged, they put together a “strenuous” public protest against this proposed action.
In a letter fillled with self-righteous indignation, Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU Washington office, expressed his opinion of that plan to Sen. David Durenberger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with copies to everyone imaginable.
And to make sure no one was left out, the ACLU also issued a press release trumpeting it’s opposition to any attempt to oust Qaddafi.” The ACLU has also shown itself a willing tool of the terrorists, waging a massive anti-anti-terrorism legal campaign. This pillar of the legal Left denounced the government’s requirement that men aged 16-25 holding “temporary visas” from nations with known ties to terrorism register with the INS; represented Sami al-Arian, the North American fundraiser and co-founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (filing a brief upholding his inalienable right to fresh briefs!); rallied on behalf of convicted al-Qaeda benefactor Maher Mofeid Hawash; urged local communities not to cooperate with federal anti-terror investigations; and opposed the FBI’s monitoring Islamist mosques. As David Horowitz notes in his book Unholy Alliance, radical Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Ron Kuby notes the “passionate…identification” most lawyers feel with their clients, such as that of convicted terror enabler Lynne Stewart for World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Given her aid for international Islamic terrorism, the government is right to keep a watchful eye on those who perpetually side with the enemy. Front Page Magazine They have fought hard for the release of Abu Ghraib images depicting sickening torture of our enemies, further inflaming the propaganda war on the side of the enemy. The ACLU also submitted a 37-page report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee describing specific U.S. breaches of the political and civil rights covenant. The report included sections on “Excessive Government Secrecy”; “Racial Profiling of the U.S. Arab, South Asian, and Muslim Communities”; “Criminalization of Political Protest”; “Increased Surveillance Powers”; and “Random Searches.” Recently the ACLU have decided to represent two detainees who claim the U.S. Military threw them into lions dens. Somebody is lion alright. They have also accused the U.S. military of outright murdering 21 detainees. They have even advised the majority of the prisoners at Gitmo that they did not have to answer questions from military interrogators. Actions like these have enraged groups like The American Legion, and Christians for Reviving American Values, who are asking Congress to investigate the ACLU. The American Legion is already mobilizing its members to fight the ACLU over issues such as the Boyscouts. The sympathy for the enemy also has them fired up. To many of these groups, and to many Americans, the perception is that The ACLU cares more about terrorists than it does about America.As you can see, balancing national security interests with a respect for civil liberties is not the goal of the ACLU. Its goal is the absolute pursuit of civil liberties, without regard for its consequences. Gone are the the carefully worded policies that guided Union thinking during World War II. Gone, too is any kind of talk about the enemies of the United States. It is hard to imagine a person vile enought, or a crisis serious enough, to shake the ACLU from its absolutist position during wartime. The tragedy is it is not just the nation's security that stands to lose as a result, it is the cause of liberty itself. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
A REAL WAR -- (Senate - November 15, 2005) --- Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because, as I travel around Oklahoma, one of the things I find is a lack of recognition of the war we are in, why we are there, what the problems are associated with it. Every one of us has a heavy heart for the fact that we now have troops committed and dying and sacrificing every day in the war on terrorism. As I thought about what to say to my constituents in Oklahoma but also to the American people, I found that I could not say it as well as retired MG Vernon Chong of the U.S. Air Force.* I wish to read, for a few moments, a commentary he has written, dated October 1, 2005. If you would indulge me to read that, I think it will give us some enlightenment to where we are. He says: To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war, and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979--22 years prior to September 2001--with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon, Embassy, 1983; Beirut, Lebanon, Marine Barracks, 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996; Nairobi, Kenya, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. Embassy, 1998; Aden, Yeman, USS Cole, 2000; New York, World Trade Center, 2001; Pentagon, 2001; and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Plane Crash, 2001 Why were we attacked: Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administration of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. [Page: S12776] GPO's PDF Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the U.S. were carried out by Muslins. What is the Muslim population of the World? Twenty-five percent. Isn't the Muslin Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominantly Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration, or you were eliminated. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews, or of taking over the world--German, Christian, or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the attention of the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way--their own people, or the Spanish, French, or anyone else. The point here, is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslins there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders, and what they are fanatically bent on doing--by their own pronouncements--killing all of us ``infidels.'' I don't blame the peaceful Muslins. What would you do--if the choice was shut up, or die? So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct, and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win, if you don't clearly recognize, and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: Can we lose this war? What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question--``What does losing mean?'' It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered, and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals, and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train, and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they are threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims [Islamo-fascists] fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite, and really put 100 percent of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And, it is going to take that 100 percent effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by ``imploding.'' That is, defeating ourselves, by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life-and-death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them, permanently. And, don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory, and in fact, added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict, and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. By the way, all of those have gone to trial or are going to trial, and will be punished. Again, these are MG Chong's words: These are the type of prisoners, who just a few months ago, were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own people, just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago, these same types of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was, and is, providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who, for several days, have thought and talked about nothing else but the ``humiliating'' of some Muslim prisoners--not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but ``humiliating'' them. Can this be for real? If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle, as Rome burned--totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims--not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized, for many years, as being ``arrogant.'' That charge is valid, in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart; that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us; and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our Nation as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive, if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone--let alone everyone, equal status, or any status for women. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war, or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written, or read. Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom, and will not apply it to you, or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other, over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the ``peaceful Muslims''? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country, and the World. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, and that includes the politicians and media of our country, and the free World! *Those are the words of retired MG Vernon Chong, U.S. Air Force. I think it brings to mind the very important facts that face us today. We are at war. The war is real. The threats to our country and to our freedom are real. We must come together as a nation and recognize this threat, or we stand to lose the very principles, the very freedom, we each cherish so much. I yield the floor. *MG Vernon Chong has stated that he recieved this in a email, thus, author unknown. Senator Coburn is Presidential material in my estimation! Linked at STOP THE ACLU
A pattern of hostility to free speech - specifically the rights of Christians to pray - is on the rise in our country. We saw it in our nation’s public schools ... where prayer was officially banned. We have seen it in our workplaces. Now, our United States military seems to have “jumped on the bandwagon” ... with Air Force leadership recently releasing proposed guidelines that will restrict how Air Force chaplains can pray. If approved, these guidelines may well be implemented throughout the entire Armed Forces. This is an outrage that we cannot allow! Already, it is documented that chaplains are “feeling the heat” to restrict their prayers and mask their faith. Christian chaplains are being told NOT to pray in the name of Jesus! For many Christian chaplains, praying in the name of Jesus is a fundamental part of their beliefs. To suppress this form of expression would be a violation of their constitutional rights and religious freedoms. Furthermore, to censor Christian chaplains is a disservice to the thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration, and support ... just as military soldiers of other faiths look to their chaplains. Again, we cannot allow these proposed guidelines to be passed. We cannot sit idly by while our honored Christian military chaplains are singled out and silenced. I have assembled a senior legal team at the ACLJ, including a 20-year military veteran who worked at the Pentagon. We are drafting a legal analysis and comments to be used in this process. Thankfully, a group of Congressmen has joined together to call on the President to protect by Executive Order the constitutional right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith. In response to this outrageous and blatant religious intolerance and infringement of free speech rights, the ACLJ has embarked on a nationwide campaign to PROTECT PRAYER and the constitutional rights of military chaplains. In our Armed Forces, all faiths must be respected. Christian chaplains must be permitted to pray in the name of Jesus. The ACLJ is working to generate a massive grassroots effort, to let the President know that we will not stand for this type of blatant religious intolerance in our nation’s military. President Bush must step in to protect religious freedom. Please add your name to our letter to President Bush urging him to protect the rights of military chaplains. .................. People, this violates the1st Amendment. The government tells us when we can and can't pray, where we can and can't pray and now they want to tell us to whom we can and can't pray! They are granting a status to a "neutral" faith that does not exist in America, thereby establishing a religion. A violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Also note that no restrictions are placed on Chaplains of any other faith. Christians are the target.
Crossposted From Stop The ACLUWashington TimesJudge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.
"I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."
But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.
"It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right.
"No, it proves no such thing," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."
Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.
"The issue is not Judge Alito's political views during the Reagan administration 20 years ago," the Republican official said. "It's his 15 years of jurisprudence, which can be evaluated in hundreds of opinions. And in none of those opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is. Why he needs an apologist on this postition has me scratching my head. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no apologies in her long history of liberal activism. Jurisprudence is the buzz word. Just note, these are his personal opinions. Not that it matters, I predict you will soon be hearing a lot of whining from the left. Don't count out that ugly fight. We may just see the left try and use that filibuster stuff just yet. Women's rights is what we will hear a lot of crying about. Be ready for Kennedy to start screaming, and liberal activist groups to go nuts. Oh, and by the way, he's absolutely right....abortion is not a right.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUThis man is out to be the American Athiest Activist of the decade I think. SACRAMENTO, Calif. The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools says he'll file a new lawsuit this week.
Michael Newdow says he'll ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U-S coins and currency. He says it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science." It wasn't enough to take God out of the pledge of Alligience. This man thinks his views trump all. He goes and creates a phony Church so he can claim religious persecution. He is truly a joke, but one we should all take serious, because he is doing tremendous damage to our Nation's heritage. The attempt to erase and rewrite history is succeeding in America. The secular cleansing is approved of by the activist Courts. This is bound to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Let's hope the new make up of the Court slaps this idiot back down where he belongs. Church of True Science...give me a break. Whats next, the Declaration of Independence being unconstitutional? Perhaps they will give him a file so he can start removing the references himself, one coin at at time.
Crossposted from Stop The ACLUVia WND we learn the latest from the religion of peace. They came in buses to the small village of Sangla Hill in the Nankana district of Punjab in India.
Some 2,000 organized Muslims first vandalized three churches, a nuns' convent, two Catholic schools, the houses of a Protestant pastor and a Catholic priest, a girls' hostel and some Christian homes, according to Asia News.
Then they burned them to the ground, while about 450 Christian families fled yesterday. They have not returned.
The Justice and Peace Commission accuses the police of "criminal negligence" because they did not intervene.
Lawrence John Saldanha, archbishop of Lahore Archdiocese and chairman of the National Commission for Justice and Peace, said "the attack seems to have been planned and organized as the attackers were brought to the site in buses and instigated to commit violence and arson. It gave our people a lot of fear and anxiety but we hope the government will do something."
The violence began 10 a.m. Saturday and was apparently motivated by the latest blasphemy case. On Friday, a Christian, Yousaf Masih, allegedly burned some copies of the Koran and disappeared. One of his brothers, Salim Masih was arrested the day before. The Commission of Justice and Peace in Lahore ruled that the blasphemy accusations were false and stemmed from the accusers having a financial dispute with the families they accused. Just a little note to the liberal apologists, ACLU, etc. Don't straddle the fence. Choose your sides, because this war is only about to get worse. I pray for you all to get on the side of good. This is a spiritual war for sure. The extremists of Islam will do their evil, and you can either keep trying your multi-culturism, politically correct crap, or not. It doesn't matter to the raged murderers of Islam either way. You can keep feeding the aligators, but don't think that means they will eat you last. I'm really wondering, hmmmm...why isn't this all over the MSM? I think we should make the MSM folks know about this one. Its time to wake up! This is a global war, and it is a spiritual one. The French are getting their wake up call. Are they listening? Jordan's getting its wake up call! Are they listening? England, your Queen are in their sites. Are you listening? You would think after 9/11 America would be listening. However, our politically correct, are too busy rewritting history. What will it take for America and the world to put aside their political differences and unite against evil?
The Separation of Church and State
by David Barton
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.1
However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. 2
In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 3
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 4
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 5
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 6
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. 7
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:
Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9
Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) 12
That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. 13
With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Endnotes:
1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
2. Id.
3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.
4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.
6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.
7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.
8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.
9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.
11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.
12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).
13. Reynolds at 163.
|
