The View From 1776

Spiritual Religion is Essential to Freedom

Liberals are not really pushing for separation of church and state; there has never been an established spiritual religion.  Their goal is no less than to destroy spiritual religion and to impose socialism as the secular state religion under the banner of social justice.  They call it scientific progress, the same terminology employed in the French Revolution’s bloody Reign of Terror and in Adolph Hitler’s Holocaust.

Survival of our formerly inalienable individual liberties is now purely a matter of chance, of public-opinion-of-the-moment.  That?s why liberal intellectuals place such a high value on ?evolving? public opinion, as a sort of Darwinian creation of successive new species of acceptable government powers.  If the public can stomach it, the government can do it, no matter what the Constitution actually says.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/31 at 06:11 PM
  1. Your failure to understand the most basic beliefs of our founders and your horrible misconception that an institution (religion) is somehow required for something totally different and unrelated, Freedom, is mind-boggling.

    You write a lot, but word count, a successful argument, does not make.
    Posted by Ben  on  07/31  at  07:43 PM
  2. Very good article.

    I would say that neither party is holding the principles this nation was founded on in very high esteem.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  07/31  at  07:43 PM
  3. Ben, I am afraid it is you that doesn't understand our founders. Why do you think we had State Religions until 1833 if we were free and had the choice.

    Why do you think they immediately legislated to have paid Chaplains for Congress? Why did they ask for Religious holidays? Why did they have literally hundreds of laws based on religion? Why do you think Congress as late as 1900 purchased the Jefferson Bible to give all new members of Congress?

    For 175 years religious teaching was a very important part of the moral laws our nation legislated. Bibles were included as textbooks in our public schools into the 1900's. However, you have made your claim, now back it up with the evidence our founders didn't have state religions (until 1833). Show me where there weren't laws on sodomy, adultery, lewd and lascivious behavior. What about the laws on prostitution, Sunday closing of most businesses, obscenity, public profanity? What about the governments in the various states that denied an atheist testimony since he didn't believe in the Bible he was to swear upon to tell the truth? What about the government offices that could only be held by a "religious person."

    But, I do look forward to your evidence.

    For my evidence I have many reference but will start with this one. However, the laws on the books in the states would be very good sources as well.
    Many states were as explicit about the need for a thriving religion as Congress was in its thanksgiving and fast day proclamations. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared, for example, that "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend on piety, religion and morality." The states were in a stronger position to act upon this conviction because they were considered to possess "general" powers as opposed to the limited, specifically enumerated powers of Congress.

    Congregationalists and Anglicans who, before 1776, had received public financial support, called their state benefactors "nursing fathers" (Isaiah 49:23). After independence they urged the state governments, as "nursing fathers," to continue succoring them. Knowing that in the egalitarian, post-independence era, the public would no longer permit single denominations to monopolize state support, legislators devised "general assessment schemes." Religious taxes were laid on all citizens, each of whom was given the option of designating his share to the church of his choice. Such laws took effect in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and were passed but not implemented in Maryland and Georgia.

    and this:
    "Religious activities," such as public prayer, are not a "state established religion," and the founding fathers knew this well. This is why at the same time they were creating our government's founding documents in the late 1700's, including the First Amendment, they were also publicly and privately praying to a Sovereign God for guidance. Proof of this is found in their actions: opening legislative sessions with prayer, holding national days of prayer and fasting, and including the words "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" in our Declaration of freedom. The single most important right which they intended to guarantee to the citizens of the newly established republic, was the right to freely exercise their religion - this is what the First Amendment ensured.

    The first action of the federal legislature in 1789 was to appoint chaplains in both houses of Congress. Congress still recognizes God by appointing and paying chaplains who open each session with a prayer. Every president of the United States has been administered the oath of office with his hand on the Bible, and ending with the words "so help me God." Witnesses in court cases are also sworn in by placing their right hand on the Bible and taking an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." The Supreme Court begins every proceeding with the proclamation, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." United States currency bears our national motto, "In God We Trust." Finally, by law the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag affirms that we are "one nation under God." And Congress would not even allow a comma to be placed after the word "nation" in order to reflect the basic idea that ours is a "nation founded on a belief in God." (4)
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  07/31  at  08:00 PM
  4. Ben, since you want to know what the founders thought and believed, here is a site with many of them and their quotes. I have only included a couple but have listed the names of the others.
    John Adams
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
    t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
    (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
    1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)
    John Quincy Adams
    Sixth President of the United States

    Samuel Adams
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    Fisher Ames
    Framer of the First Amendment

    Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    Benjamin Franklin
    Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

    Thomas Jefferson
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

    Richard Henry Lee
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    James McHenry
    Signer of the Constitution

    Jedediah Morse
    Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

    William Penn
    Founder of Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.
    (Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Cmmonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)
    Benjamin Rush
    Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    George Washington
    "Father of Our Country"
    Daniel Webster
    Early American Jurist and Senator

    Noah Webster
    Founding Educator

    James Wilson
    Signer of the Constitution

    Robert Winthrop
    Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

    I think you may have trouble finding quotes that state they didn't want religion to be an important part of this nation and the influence religious people would have on government. But, in all cases it would be filtered through the majority since we are a majority rule nation. If you didn't read the other threads on our Founding I will include these from Washinton and Jefferson and ask, how since the States were religious and even today all 50 State Constitutions acknowldge God, could we not have a government influenced by the common beliefs of a religious population?

    quote:(A tale of two Constitutions)
    As explained by George Washington:

    The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. 7

    Thomas Jefferson agreed:

    The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. 8

    Does this original principle therefore mean that minorities are to be disregarded or trodden upon? Of course not. As Jefferson further explained:

    Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  07/31  at  08:21 PM
  5. Embryonic stem cell (ESC) advocates invariably accuse anyone against it of either religious myopia or misrepresentation of libertarian principles. So let
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/31  at  09:30 PM
  6. And for 175 years it didn't matter if the individual voting or calling for a law or a repeal of a law, based it on religious beliefs or not. The only thing that mattered was his State Constitution (since until about the 1950's even the Supreme Court didn't apply any religious standard), and whether or not over 50% of his fellow citizens agreed with him.

    So, while we can't say one way or another whether the President based his "veto" on his secular beliefs, religous beliefs or a combination, it wouldn't have mattered for at least 175 years because even Presidents had freedom of religion and Congress could override a veto, or they could wait until a new President had been seated or they could impeach him.

    It is like the lack of understanding between "President" and "Commander in Chief" and the difference in what powers they have. Many of the names laid on Bush were also laid on Lincoln for the same reason. They suspended some rights as Commander in Chief which a President couldn't do.

    I noticed that some things like "King Bush" rang a historical bell.
    He (Vallandigham, candidate for governor of Ohio) specifically attacked the Emancipation Proclamation,.... (36) He attacked the draft and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. He said "King Lincoln" should be thrown from office and that the North should stop fighting the war. He called for a peace conference..

    How bad was Lincoln? That too was covered.
    Since Lincoln controlled the army for the most part, his position prevailed during the war. In fact some noted historian describe it as dictatorial. (23) It was not until the war was over that the courts undid the war rulings.

    This is the correct way to deal with what is done when (U.S. Constitution Section. 2) "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

    Prior to the end, the means for controlling a rogue Commander in Chief would be impeachment. But, once the conflict is ended, then Congress and the Courts have a duty to return the nation to full rights.

    However, we have a problem in that our military is always in "service" in Korea, Germany, Iraq, and other places. I do believe we do need some clarification of "hen called into the actual Service of the United States" means and I believe most Presidents would welcome it. But, it probably would require a Constitutional amendment to make it have firm constitutional standing with the Supreme Court.

    The Court has been rather vague in its rulings when they touch on the powers of the Commander in Chief.

    What isn't amazing is how little is known about the founding of the nation, the role of State Constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and other history of our government. The reason it isn't amazing is that it is seldom taught to our children in detail. They are give vague sound bytes that have little resemblence to historical fact.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  07/31  at  10:41 PM
  7. Nice way to lump all of us Liberals into one group of seething secularists out to destroy your faith. That always helps your argument gain credibility.

    I don't want your faith to go away, I just want you to keep it to yourself.

    Why is that so hard for so many (Christians primarily) to understand. I don't want you to preach to me, I don't want your morality legislated to me, and I don't want you to try and pass off your faith as having any basis in science (using science to prove religion kinda goes against the definition of faith).

    And the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. Any argument trying to prove otherwise is revisionist and not supported by the facts.
    Posted by Shane  on  08/01  at  02:02 PM
  8. With regard to the statement, "And the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/01  at  03:40 PM
  9. Mr. Brewton I've partly answered your very abrasive argument in one of my posts named "One word I hate: The 'E' word":

    In it I defend my Secular beliefs from being classed as extreme and directly contest your vicious and coarse accusation that Secularists are in the same group as Nazis.

    You are totally misinformed in the area of Secularism and I would make sure that you've read a description rather than mercilessly slandering me on illogical claims.

    Your argument is defended solely by your ridiculous word count that embellishes the hidden message under your text: a hatred of the modern evolution of politics.

    Without a doubt you are scared of changing for the better and hang on traditions rather than trying to understand what modern politics is really about.
    Posted by Jordan Greenaway  on  08/01  at  04:14 PM
  10. No, not all were Deists, but of course, back then there was no "Church of the Deists" and being affiliated with a church was just a good idea if you were going to be a public figure. Religious "affiliation", however, is not an accurate quantifier of ones views of matters theological. I was baptised Lutheran and raised in the United Church of Christ. Neither of those affiliations comes even close to my true views of faith and religion.

    I would suggest that Mr. Brewton (and others) go to his local library and read the writings of the founding fathers (don't use the web, too many false quotes and attributations on sites that are not reviewed for historical accuracy) to get a better idea of the views of the founding fathers.

    Also, please tell me how many times Christ is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Common Sense, the Federalist Papers, or any of the other core documents upon which our secular government was founded.

    No one, then or now, denies that our nation is mostly Christian, but I for one agree with the founding fathers in doing everything possible to keep all but the most personal of faith out of the wheels of government.
    Posted by Shane  on  08/01  at  04:17 PM
  11. Regarding not wanting the religious to preach their beliefs or legislate them then you don't believe in the system of majority rule with a Constitution the founders set up? You still haven't explained how we are to have what Washington and Jefferson said was the majority to prevail if that majority choose to have religious based laws even though those laws wouldn't reflect one religion but over 2,000 faiths and denominations.

    You haven't said who gets to choose which laws are "too religious," since all laws are religious in nature becasue they are based on "beliefs" of what is or isn't "good." An atheist is a religious belief so why should they have more rights than any other religion. At least the Supreme Court says it is a religion.

    If you aren't going to have majority rule than what minority do you pick to rule the majority? You also haven't explained why if the founders were so against religion they allowed the states to have state religions until the people did away with them by 1833.

    Also why with your view of the Constitution and founders did all states have religous laws and most still do? Why did we have religous holidays declared by the government you said was so separate? Why did Congress buy Jefferson Bibles and distribute them to the new members. Why did Congress state this.
    On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress passed "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States." This law was passed again by the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on August 4, 1789:

    Article III
    Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.

    If they weren't supposed to promote religion why did they promote it, hire Chaplains, start sessions with prayer, swear oaths of office on Bibles, deny atheists the right of testimony, buy Bibles put religious displays on government buildings. These were the very people who wrote and knew the meaning of the words they wrote and yet they did more religious things with government that we ever have in recent history.

    Did you read the quotes of all those founders. They all felt religion was important.

    However, that isn't the point now. It is whether or not we are going to follow the Constitution in how the majority changes the things it wants to change. Just as some don't want religous people to pass laws, some don't want atheists to pass laws or some other religion. So how do we decide? We let the majority decide in each state as we did for 175 years.

    As you are aware, the Supreme Court depends on the mind of 5 of the 9 people. Now, Kennedy says it is turning away from the previous Court's type of mentality. Is that ok? Do we really want a Court that swings back and forth deciding issues or do we want to use the majority rule system with the representative form of democracy under a State Constitution for State issues and a U.S. Constitution for Federal issues.

    Also, if we are to be a "Godless" nation why did we put God in all 50 State Constitutions? Sounds as if the founders of those states as well as the nation felt "God" was important to the majority that ratified the Constitutions. And since the state Constitution had more power than the Federal Constitution on State Issue not given to the Federal Government, we have to look first to the State Constitution on much of what is being argued. Why hasn't one single state taken God or all the laws based on religious values out of their state? Why do we still have even a few states that still ban "cohabitation with the intent to commit fornication?" That sounds religious to me and the last case heard by the Supreme Court on that law, upheld the state's right to have that law.

    For 175 years, we had across the nation thousands of religous laws. What changed in the Constitution in the last 50 years that makes those laws unConstitutional? Or, was it a Supreme Court that "incorporated the Bill of Rights" that previously didn't apply to the states (also a ruling by the Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the State) and then not only "incorporated" them but interpreted them differently than previous Courts including the Courts in session when the Constitution was first ratified.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/01  at  05:35 PM
  12. How is it that all the Courts closer to the actual time of the Constitution knew less than a Court 175 years later.

    Yes we can argue what the founders intended and never change anybody's mind. But, how do you deny that every state and even Congress did religious related legislature. Congress purchasing Bibles, for example or demanding religous holidays or using tax payer money to pay Chaplains and buy those Bibles with. Since many of those in Congress were also founders, how do you justify their religious actions when they knew the Constitution denied them?

    How do you justify state religions until as late as 1833 in all but R.I. if that was a violation of the Constitution since the leaders of those states were also founders of the nation and drafters of the Constitution and whose states ratified that Constitution.

    The Constitution was written and ratified by many who were also in Congress in 1782 when:
    "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools." -The US Congress 1782

    There was never any concerted effort to separate legislation from the people who were asking for many pieces of legislature that was based on their religous beliefs. The Federal Government did not legislate these issues because it had no power to. They were state issues and still are today because the Constitution hasn't been amendended, only re-translated by a Court that may again re-translate it and overturn some of the last 50 years decisions.

    Unless they are returning the original intent, they have no right to do that anymore than previous Courts may have deviated from original intent as to how this nation woud make the changes minorities sought through the majority.

    There is no right or wrong regarding "now" and our religious laws or views. There is only the view of the majority as it changes and amends its Constituion to accomodate that change. Nobody wants to go back to the laws that didn't allow a woman to wear a "revealing" swim suit to the beach. Well, maybe a few in a very small minority, but, we the majority don't want to go back to that. Yet, we have to use the guidelines set out for "change" to make those changes as we did with the right to vote for women and 18 year olds granted by the majority in a Constitutional Amendment. Those rules still apply.
    I conclude with this on Jefferson while President.
    In 1803, at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, the United States Congress allocated federal funds for the salary of a preacher and the construction of his church. That same year, Congress, again at Jefferson
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/01  at  05:42 PM
  13. Hmmm...there's been some fairly sharp words here, so I'll throw in my little bit.

    First, I've read a number of the letters from Jefferson to (if my memory is working correctly) John Adams (correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall these two were good friends who argued vehemently over the wording of the constitution-I may have the wrong John). set of letters in particular surprised me-it was where they discussed whether to use "God" or "Creator". "Creator" was Jefferson's idea (rather than "God"), and specifically so: he wanted to prevent endorsement of any specific religion in the constitution. As a Deist, he was sensitive to being governed by a religion-specific government.

    So if a government is to be religion non-specific, how can it be religious? Very difficult, my friends.

    To be honest, I think Jefferson had a different idea in mind than many of his peers, but knew they wouldn't accept all his ideas, so he settled for what he could get. Typical politics-not bad, not good, just is.

    On a final note-EVERY war in history has had a religious component (until recently, religion WAS the government EVERYWHERE in the world). When's the last time you saw an agnostic or atheist say he's going to kill you because you don't believe like him? It's not in their doctrine, their model of humanity. How often do you hear Christians say such things? (I'm only singling out Christians because it's the single largest group in the US-other religions are guilty too-ones that have vengeful gods).

    Oh yea, don't forget the Crusades, a war to maintain control over a region, with the word of god as it's backer.

    The problem with using religion as the backbone of law, is you no longer have a rule of law, but a rule of superstition/belief, which can't be argued/discussed, because one side will eventually devolve to saying "you simply lack faith/god".

    And let's get one last thing in here:
    It's ok to deride (some?) Muslims for believing in certain things as folly (like the virgins they'll have), yet a Christian can believe in an unseeable god, faith healing, rising from the dead, etc, and that's supposed to be reasonable? Or that a book, which has been translated many times, is the ACTUAL word of some god?

    One can never win an argument where religion is concerned because arguments assume logic and reason, and religion is a matter of faith (paraphrase of a smart minister I met once-he really opened my eyes that religion is truly a matter of faith, and a person either has faith or doesn't).
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/02  at  12:10 AM
  14. Quote; from Bob
    The problem with using religion as the backbone of law, is you no longer have a rule of law,

    That is exactly why we had a Constitution and majority rule so all religious beliefs would be filtered through that majority. It also doesn't explain the thousands of religious laws we have had for the 1st 175 years, fifty state Constitutions that define God in everyway imaginable, laws still on the books like "cohabitation with the intent to fornicate." You can't get much more of a religous term than that.

    What about prayers, Bibles that our officials take an oath on. As far as I know, they have all been Christian Bibles with a New Testament. What about the purchase of Bibles by Congress. These are all things done before, during and after the writing and ratification of the Constitution and they thought there was no problem with the Constitution over it.

    What about the fact that the Constitution didn't apply to the States on these issues for 175 years. What changed that? Was it an amendment I am not aware of or are we saying it took that long for a few Justices to learn what the founders meant?

    Remember we don't have to have a single religious based law but then we would not have laws against murder, slander, theft or all the laws based on those things.

    They like sexual laws have both religious and secular reasons behind them so what do we use to decide if it is religious based? If the reasons are 51% religious and only 49% secular do we not pass the legislation and if it is 51% secular we do?

    Where do we draw the line?

    We drew the line in the first 175 years by requiring the majority support the legislation and since religious laws were passed in the thousands among the states why was that allowed if it was un-constitutional? Wouldn't you think somebody would have figured it out in 175 years?

    Why were the State Religions allowed? Those people at that time had just written and ratified the Constitution and not one state was forced to rid itself of the state religion until the people themselves in each state slowly did away with them. Are you saying our founders were so dumb they didn't know what they wrote?

    Why did they hire chaplains to "council" legislators? Why did they demand religious holidays after the Constitution was written?

    None of these question have been answered by any person who claims the founders wanted separation. They simply say they wanted separation and refuse to answer how all the religious history occurred in spite of their opposition when many of the served in Congress and as Presidents. You also didn't answer Jefferson, since his so popular on separation regarding his statement that religion was a state issue. Are you saying he didn't know he could stop states from having state religion or religious laws?

    During that first few decades, I would venture there were more laws based on religion than laws that weren't. Remember, just about every sin was covered by law. Business were even order closed on Sunday because that was the "day of worship" of the majority.

    Gradually, all states followed the lead of Virginia in ending religion taxes. Massachusetts in 1833 was the last of the original 13 states to do this. But some states still involved themselves with religion. For instance, several states made recitation of the Lord's Prayer and devotional Bible readings mandatory in public schools.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  01:44 AM
  15. Lets be clear where things changed:

    Not until the 20th century did the U.S. Supreme Court apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) requires states to guarantee fundamental rights such as the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion. This means that states, like the federal government, can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

    In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

    Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]

    Some constitutional experts dispute Justice Black's definition of the establishment clause. They argue that "an establishment of religion" only prohibits the federal and state governments from supporting a national church or preferring one religion over others. In a 1985 case, current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in a minority opinion, "The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion [no religion] nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion." [Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).] Rehnquist and others take the position that government may aid all religions or religion in general as long as no groups suffer discrimination.

    (More on the minority opinion in a bit)

    Since I grew up before then, and even after that time, there were all kinds of religious laws still being enforced. As I stated, for 175 years we had religious laws and no Supreme Court had challenged a law based only on religious beliefs of the majority.

    Also, nobody has answered if the current Supreme Court goes back to the definition and customs of the Court before this 1947 ruling or before the 1925 ruling of Gitlow, for example, will everybody be happy knowing that if the Supreme Court
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  01:48 AM
  16. That is what is humorous. We still have laws on the books even now that are religious in nature and as this case points out can result in a penalty. Probably hasn't been appealed but, it is still on the books. As this article points out in New York, "adultery was the only ground for divorce, reflecting a biblical principle that adultery is the only thing that could justify terminating a valid marriage prior to the death of either party." Kind of hard to get around the religious implication of that law's basis.

    However, we also haven't had an answer to whether or not we are going to go back to the Constitutional method of change? Are we going to have a Court decide our laws in a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people," or are we going to use the rules laid down in the Constitution as we did "fairly well" for 175 years. Remember it was the Court overruling the majority that extended segregation for 80 years after a ban on segregation was passed by Congress in 1875 as empowered to do by the 14th Amendment.

    The majority don't want to go back to those laws for the most part, that isn't even the issue that much anymore. The issue is how do we "change" what was to what is needed? Conservatives belief it should be done as the Constitution outlined, as states did away with state religions, as the majority gave the right to vote to women, banned segregation, gave the right to vote to 18 yr. olds, banned sale of alcohol, and repealed the ban on alcohol. Why not just have a Court rule women's rights were being violated or that 18 year olds dying in wars for their nation deserved a vote if they were going to die for the nation.

    Which way is it going to be. By the majority under a Constitution or by a Court unconstitutionally as we have for 50 years or so where each new court can swing back and forth from one interpretation to another?

    Also, please post as many sources of your information as possible so we can go and read the rest of what they say. Many things found in libraries are also found on line and if you include the author and a line or two with the title we can often find things on it online.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  01:50 AM
  17. Or we can go to the library and look it up too. Sorry for the mispelled and wrong form of word in some cases. Getting late even here in Az.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  01:58 AM
  18. Why don't you just say: "I hate liberals. Yes, I do!" and get it over with? Your writings seem to be merely more elaborate wordings of that same sentiment and generally lack any good justification whatsoever.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/02  at  09:26 AM
  19. Why, what is the liberal view? I thought we were talking about how the nation was founded, not somebody's view. If you mean the Supreme Court, I don't want either the "Conservative" agenda or the "Socialist" agenda coming from the Court. This nation, "we the people," have the right to be as liberal or as conservative as we want. The Founders didn't create a "Conservative" or "Liberal" nation. They created a nation where the nation would be what the people were. The people had the ability to change the laws, the Constitution and the role of government through a process laid out in the State and U.S. Constitutions.

    We actually have the right to have a Liberal state next to a Conservative state if we keep the format our founders started with. That way, we have the variety of societies that fit more people, not less as would a "one-size-fit-all" culture across all societies in our nation.

    As I stated, there is no right or wrong unless the will of the people is being short circuited by a Court that isn't acting constitutionally. It is why we can have the death penalty in one state and not in another, prostitution in one and not another, etc. We are a nation of diverse societies that a centralized government is destroying the diversity of. Do you really think the people who live in Italian, or German or Hispanic communities want to give up their beliefs, traditions, customs, laws, etc.? They shouldn't have to become "one" with all the others. While there are some things the people of all the states agree on that formed a "U.S. culture" there were hundreds of laws and customs and traditions that didn't fit anybody but the culture of the state or subculture of a state.

    Again, the Amish are a good example of a culture that exists within a State that is very different. The laws of every state are different because they are different societies and each society (state) was sovereign except for the limited power the state gave the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution.

    I happen to know many liberals who believe that we should return to the format the founders designed but they certainly don't want to go back the laws or "pre-social security" or "pre-welfare" times of the nation. Nor should they have to. What has being a Liberal got to do with whether or not we follow the Constitution? Conservatives may want a more limited government than liberals. Some, but certainly not all Conservatives may want "more strict laws on something like abortion, but they can't have their way if the majority doesn't agree with them?

    If I hated liberals I would have to hate much of my family since I come from a factory working, union member, Democrat voting family. I just see that nations that follow socialism decline and afford few in the nation a quality life. Having social programs is not socialism necessarily. It is how you fund those programs that can slide you into socialism. Ireland has many social programs but has comepletely turned their nation from 120% national debt to GDP down to 27% as they raised workers wages from 1/2 ours to $1.30 more than ours by useing capitalism, not socialism.

    Being a liberal is not at issue. The only thing at issue is how we determine what laws will be legislated. Some feel the Court should be a deciding overseer. Others believe the format laid out in the Constitution should be the only way. As I have stated, I don't want a "Conservative Court" making decisions like that anymore than a "Liberal Court." That is not the role the Court was given in the Constitution. That is not the role the Court took upon themselves for 150-175 years.

    But, if those who do want the Court making the decisions, I hope they won't complain if a "Conservative Court" does start making changes since they feel that is a proper role of the Court. I however will be complaining because I don't want a "Conservative Court." I prefer a Strict Constructionalist or a Texologist type of Justics who only follows the original intent of our founders.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  12:17 PM
  20. Generally the Christian think to say is " I don't hate liberals. Hating is not the Christian thing to do".

    I am parroting Mel Gibson. Note the connection and the sarcasm.

    Some sanctimonious Christian Conservatives (CCs) might say instead, "I don't hate liberals, I just feel sorry for them". Well, we don't need your pity because we Christian Liberals (CLs) are far superior to you.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/02  at  12:37 PM
  21. David says
    Well, we don
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/02  at  01:08 PM
  22. Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
    The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
    reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
    intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
    perceives and measures values.

    Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
    However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
    must be greater than the value measured. Based on
    preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
    nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
    task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
    tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

    Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
    cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
    lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
    cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
    foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
    ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
    is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
    averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
    unworthy worship.

    The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
    a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
    foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
    ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
    validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
    ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
    sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
    thereby lack what only the Bible has:

    1.Transcendent Criteria and
    2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

    The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
    equipment for today and the future.

    At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe quantum
    physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the
    causal chain; particles to which position cannot be
    assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy
    state to another without manifestation in intermediate
    states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is
    as insubstantial as "a probability."

    Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to
    deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are
    therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this
    sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate
    reality is capable of making toward choice, without its
    own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation
    of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers
    to the natural action of living forms.

    Biological science affirms that each level of life,
    single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of
    sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in
    the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified
    life form.

    The survival and progression of life forms has all too
    often been dependent upon the ever-present undeterminative
    potential and appearance of one unique individual organism
    within the whole spectrum of a given life-form. Only the
    uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden
    Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to
    survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy
    would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential.

    Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables
    the present reality.

    - from The HUMAN PARADIGM

    P.S. Western science was/is based on the Biblical view of a causal universe.

    Man-made criteria goes no higher than their hairline. Mediocrity (and worse), thus, is the product of liberal humanistic socialism.

    World history verifies. Slow learners note.
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  08/03  at  10:15 AM
  23. Also, we sometime focus so hard on making life "fair" in our own society, we fail to see that we are losing the ability to compete in the "world."

    The consumer doesn't care if the price of something of equal quality is priced as it is due to high labor or high tax costs. That Consumer buys the one that is lower in price normally. So often, since "fairness" means more cost in either government regulation or higher wages or some other factor, we often end up losing more than we gain. The $8 an hour worker who gets a $2 an hour raise, doesn't see the benefit because, he has been laid off due to the plant he worked in moving or closing.

    It doesn't matter whether the business was "justified," or did it out of "greed," the worker is still out of a job. Until we realize that "fair" or not, we have to compete in a new emerging world market filled with hungry workers who will work and get an education and have lower healthcare costs and lower taxes, and lower litigation costs, and lower raw material costs, and lower compliance costs, but higher shipping costs, we will have a deep divide between Liberals and Conservatives. While they want many wonderful things for working men and women, what do those working men and women gain, if they have no job and nation goes bankrupt?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  08/03  at  02:27 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.