Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 05-18-2002, 11:55 AM

Droxyn:

I believe that you will find the following URL, and all hyperlinks, of considerable value concerning the Northwest Ordinance.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm</a>

Droxyn · 05-18-2002, 07:45 PM

Thats all some pretty interesting stuff. Just had a little history lesson on the NWO.

Hez, your post from Levy isn't real helpful in and of itself. He jsut basically says "ummmm, Rehnquist is wrong and I am right." Whoa, he sure convinced me!! I'm sure he elaborates and gives his sources in his book however. Interesting also how he is not a strict seperationinst. Don't you think a 'strict' anything is not good?

Good links Buffman. I noticed in the links that they say the House and the Senate (commonly refered to as Congress) Had nothing to do with the NWO but the Continental Congress wrote it. But throughout the description he refers to 'Congress did this , Congress thought that." I understand what they mean but they could have been clearer. Furthermore, they never say who actually finalized the NWO. (Atleast I didnt notice it) Did the CC send their authored version to the House and Senate and then they did't really bother to look at it and just passed it on? I noticed D. Barton says it was signed by Pres Wash. on Aug 7 1789 and no one argued with that. So even if The House & Senate didnt write it they did approve it.

Now I don't even mean to imply that the NWO supports no seperation between Church and State. (I actually think they meant to keep government out of the Church not vice versa... but that is just a musing, I have absolutely no basis for saying that)

I hadnt realized that the NWO wasnt under the Constituion..very cool. Actually I just never thought about it. I don't know about the whole "they were forced to put that wording in there" thing. Surely the same pressures existed when they were framing the first amendment. Why were they so resolute there and not in the NWO when they passed it?

I also grasp that the NWO by no means estabolished anything anyway. My main intent in posting was to present the thought that in the framers day, religion in the public forum wasnt considered such a horrendous taboo as it is today. Being religious and in government seems to be worse than politicians sleeping around and having affairs. (sorry, I shall silence my unfounded and unsupported opinions now.)

OK, I get the NWO now pretty well, here's something else.

Who said this and in what context???

Quote:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

And then he said:

Quote:

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people

To conclude:

Quote:

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

The ACLU would have had a heyday with this one!

Anyway, very cool stuff though... American History rocks!!![[[[

{edited by Toto to fix quote tags only}

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Buffman · 05-19-2002, 12:25 AM

Thank you for taking the time to review those URLs. I hope they were informative.

I understand what they mean but they could have been clearer.

Sorry! I did not find anything confusing about them.

Furthermore, they never say who actually finalized the NWO. (Atleast I didnt notice it)

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void.
Done by the United States, in Congress assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787, and of their soveriegnty and independence the twelfth.

Did the CC send their authored version to the House and Senate and then they did't really bother to look at it and just passed it on? I noticed D. Barton says it was signed by Pres Wash. on Aug 7 1789 and no one argued with that. So even if The House & Senate didnt write it they did approve it.

You might wish to reread the following URL a little closer.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm</a>

Here is an additional source with which to compare specific dates concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which were submitted as a group) and some additional philosophical/political/social underpinnings for the ratification of the Constitution.

<a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/abt_const.html" target="_blank">http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/abt_const.html</a>

(Excerpt) During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, convened in the summer of 1787, 55 delegates met to amend the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the U.S. However, in its final form, the new Constitution of the United States was substantially rewritten. On September 28, 1787, it was submitted to the 13 states for ratification. By June 1788, nine states had ratified the document. March 4, 1789, was set as the day the new Constitution would take effect.
Ratification in most states depended upon the adoption of the Bill of Rights -- as the first proposed amendments to the Constitution. Of the 12 amendments proposed in September 1789, 10 were ratified by the states, and their formal adoption occurred on December 15, 1791.

The Articles of Confederation as Precursor to the Constitution
The Articles of Confederation, written in 1781, had been explicit in guarding the independence of the states and did not provide for a federal chief executive or judicial system. Any amendment to the Articles of Confederation had required unanimous approval of all the states. The early framers of the Articles had been heavily influenced by the constitutions of individual states and the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence, and were particularly concerned with limiting the powers of the federal government over the states and guaranteeing the freedom of each individual citizen.
To allay the fear that a monolithic centralized government in which all power was vested would readily lead to tyranny, the principle of separation of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches was devised. This system of checks and balances would maintain the delicate balance between the authority of the federal government and the rights and liberties of the individual citizen.(End excerpt)

(I actually think they meant to keep government out of the Church not vice versa... but that is just a musing, I have absolutely no basis for saying that)

Perhaps you will gain some insights by reading the following URL...with special emphasis on # 3. (Please note the date as well.)

<a href="http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html</a>

I don't know about the whole "they were forced to put that wording in there" thing. Surely the same pressures existed when they were framing the first amendment. Why were they so resolute there and not in the NWO when they passed it?

Should you wish to become a serious student of accurate American history concerning this period and these issues, I highly recommend that you read the 82 pages of discussion over the '1st Amendment: Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses' in "The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins" edited by Neil H. Cogan, Oxford University Press, 1997.--- Under the Continental Congress(CC), there were no checks and balances like those found in the Constitutional Congress.---It was the 13th CC that passed the first NWO. It was the 15th CC that became the first Constitutional Congress on 4 Mar 1789, commensurate with Washington's inauguration as President, that continued the approval of the NWO that Washington signed on Aug.7, 1789. (In 1778, Robert Morris said, "The Continental Congress and the currency have greatly depreciated." And that was during the Revolutionary War.)--- I believe that you will find a considerable amount of discussion/debate over the specific wording of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, by those concerned with its religious/non-religious implications on the nation, in the Cogan compilation. However, I suspect that it wasn't until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868 that State's Rights advocates decided that they must find other methods of inserting "their" particular brand of Protestant Christianity into the national psyche. The horrible Civil War between the Christian North and the Christian South had only recently ended. The northern "carpetbaggers" were already raping what was left of the South...just as the Ohio Company attempted to rape and profit from the NWO through their influence in the CC. (I would not be at all surprised if both groups of investors used religion as a means to greater personal profit and wealth.)

I also grasp that the NWO by no means estabolished anything anyway. My main intent in posting was to present the thought that in the framers day, religion in the public forum wasnt considered such a horrendous taboo as it is today.

Your point is well taken. Nine colonies had established religions as part of their government. In those colonies the only religion that was taboo was any religion/non-religion that was different from the established one. (Big Smile) However, have you done any research on the number of people in those 13 colonies that actually attended church or claimed strong denominational religious beliefs? ---Religion is certainly not taboo in today's public forum. Quite the reverse. That's practically all we hear about from the current administration. You seem to be somewhat confused about what the actual philosophy is behind C-S (religion-government) separation.

Droxyn, I doubt that anyone in this forum would deny that the vast majority of early Americans believed in the supernatural and a Creator God. (Just imagine what they might have done to you if you claimed that man would walk on the Moon someday...or that we would uncover enough fossilized bones to reconstruct dinosaurs...or split the atom...or do DNA splicing.) First of all, non-believers could not hold office. Therefore it stands to reason that every member of the Constitutional Convention professed a belief in a supernatural God. However, these unusually wise and experienced men also believed that denominational religious fervor was a threat to a peaceful and prosperous life and country. Therefore they intentionally kept matters of religion (individual expressions of religious or non-religious conscience/belief) out of the federal republic they created...but not the desired ethical/moral values. That is primarily why they created a balance of powers...to help prevent unethical/immoral acts by a single, all-powerful body/individual. By so doing, they protected the minority religious/non-religious beliefs from the oppression of the majority religious/non-religious beliefs. IMHO, that is the greatest gift that they gave to the world.

Who said this and in what context???

May I inquire for what purpose you included these quotes?

<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878602.html" target="_blank">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878602.html</a>

hezekiah jones · 05-19-2002, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Droxyn:
Hez, your post from Levy isn't real helpful in and of itself. He just basically says "ummmm, Rehnquist is wrong and I am right." Whoa, he sure convinced me!! I'm sure he elaborates and gives his sources in his book however.

As I said, the quotation is from the preface of Levy's book on the establishment clause. Yes, he does "elaborate" and "give his sources." In fact he devotes several pages of that book to an examination of the Northwest Ordinance and its relationship to the establishment clause, but I'm afraid you're going to have to go and read them yourself.

Leonard Levy has been "elaborating" and "giving his sources" over the course of authoring and editing nearly 40 books devoted to American history, particularly constitutional issues.

Levy won a Pulitzer Prize for his book Origins of the Fifth Amendment and is frequently cited in the body of Supreme Court opinions for his voluminous contribution to the historical literature.

You might want to contemplate that for just a moment before you so quickly dismiss Levy's highly informed and credible objections to Rehnquist's Wallace dissent.

David Barton and yourself would also do well to consider the constitutionality of various other statutes passed by Congress during the late 18th century, for example, the Sedition Act of 1798.

"Specific practices of the founders do not guarantee the constitutionality of those practices if the text of the Constitution or a principle or purpose of it does not warrant them. The founders' preference for Protestantism or Christianity has not only passed out of date; it had no constitutional basis originally." - The Establishment Clause, p. 235

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Droxyn · 05-19-2002, 10:32 AM

Where do you all find the time to read so much stuff!!! I'm a fairly slow reader(when I am trying to understand what I'm reading) and that gets very annoying. I will attempt to look that the URL's given. However, in another thread I mention that I have a WHOLE bunch of house stuff to do and my wife has been a bit peeved with the amount of time that I'm on here. So my time for scholarly pursuits is quite limited unfortunately...but I shall try.

Quote:

"Specific practices of the founders do not guarantee the constitutionality of those practices if the text of the Constitution or a principle or purpose of it does not warrant them. The founders' preference for Protestantism or Christianity has not only passed out of date; it had no constitutional basis originally." - The Establishment Clause, p. 235

I don't mean to imply that they do. But it seems to me that if such an inaugural address was given today, it would be ridiculed as an attempt to estabolish this new presidents religious beliefs. (although I'm sure you will be able to produce a URL where someone did rebuke Washington for his obviously unconstitutional address

)

Quote:

You might want to contemplate that for just a moment before you so quickly dismiss Levy's highly informed and credible objections to Rehnquist's Wallace dissent.

I havn't dismissed anything. Sorry, I was just pointing out that the lengthy quote you provided wasn't real helpful. You could have saved yourself some time and said,'hey check out what this Levy guy says in his book bla bla.) I dont dismiss his work, I dismissed what was shown to me (as I should until I check it out for myself, right??

)

Quote:

or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government,

At least this part is good. Thats an odd act, Sect 4 especially. Now mind you, I jsut read the act itself, I did not read any legal interpretations of it. Going off of my non-existant legal experiences, it seems like this was a bad act. It seems to set up the government a bit to high and doesn't allow its people to disagree with it without fear of penalty. Hey, by the way Hez, please don't lump me in there with anyone else,

Quote:

David Barton and yourself

I understand why you would, but it automatically makes me a Barton follower to other readers.of which I am not. I think he has some interesting points just like anyone else in the debate. I have a hard time blanketing someone with the thought that EVERYTHING they say is wrong. No more than I think any one thing they say is correct (untill perhaps substantiated elsewhere.) And that goes for anyone. Sorry, just a nitpick

Yes, I have read the memorial & remonstrance before. Excellant piece. Yes I note the date. It seems like they should have used these arguments when paaing the NWO. They a very good points. I dont intend to argue that there isn't or should not be A seperation between religion and government. The nature of the memorial & remonstrance (if I understand correctly) is about a bill that gives ederal funds to teachers who are teaching christianity. I agree with the author that that approaches estabolishment as later defined in the constitution because they are saying'hey if you teach this specific religion, we'll give you cash'.......welllll craaaaap, i have to go now...there is a bunch more I want to say but alas, I must appease the little lady. ( Do any of you have the same problem. great talking with you, send some more URL's as I'm sure you will)

Here's another quote before I go

Quote:

And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity

Should he have been rebuked also???

Buffman · 05-19-2002, 02:18 PM

Droxyn

I can certainly appreciate your dilemma. Obviously you are relatively new to this specific issue and your female partner can't quite appreciate why you would be "wasting your time" trying to delve into the background and intricacies of such a contentious issue with people you don't even know ...and worse yet, don't believe that Jesus Christ is their saviour. On the other hand, I consider your efforts, to date, to be well presented and noteworthy. Unfortunately, you have not been exposed to all these Secular Web forums long enough to gain a full appreciation of what goes on in them or the enormous amount of testable information that can be found here.

On a rather regular basis, Christian apologists will enter into these discussions attempting to support "their" supernatural beliefs by advancing out-dated contentions or offering allegations that what isn't...really is, and vice versa. Naturally those who have been here longest have heard and answered, ad nauseam, these identical offerings many times before. It is much like re-inventing the wheel for many of us. However, in your case, I sense a sincere effort to gain an accurate insight into this specific issue...even though, at the moment, it is difficult for you to remove the conditioned sunglasses of Christian dogma long enough to find the accurate facts and how they should be applied to the benefit of everyone...believer and non-believer alike. You are discovering that the history that you thought you knew is nothing like the history as it really was. I agree with you that that can be a very exciting, and addicting, discovery. It can also be a very dangerous discovery for the person who has built their entire world view around invalid superstitions and social myths. No one, whether religionist or non-religionist, if they are capable of being truly honest with themselves, likes discovering that their knowledge is faulty. Why? Well, because if they can be wrong about one belief, then what prevents them from being wrong about many others? It can be a most unsettling "revelation"...an actual life-changing one...and it appears that most humans resist change because it places their concept of survival back at risk.

How lets take a look at your most current words.

Where do you all find the time to read so much stuff!!!

The quick answer is that I have been around longer than you have and I made this subject one of great personal interest many decades ago. Time is the true enemy of all living things. There will never be enough time to do all that one wishes to do. Therefore, one must discipline themselves in such a manner that they make the most of the time that is available to them. I realize that that is elaborating the obvious. However, it is a matter of accurately recognizing priorities and then prioritizing those priorities. Defending the Constitutional interpretations of Church-State separation is high priority on my final list of priorities. I set aside the time to offer the most accurate information I have concerning it to anyone that seeks the information or that would attempt to weaken its constitutionally established status.

So my time for scholarly pursuits is quite limited unfortunately...but I shall try.

I recognize and truly appreciate your effort to sort through all the, seemingly, conflicting data about how C-S separation should be understood and applied in America. Obviously you have come here with one set of beliefs well established in your mind. Your 'bio' makes that clear. It also alerts me to the possibility that you have not been exposed to all the accurate information that might place those "well-established" beliefs at question. Therefore, I am attempting to expose your mind to additional knowledge...not to attack your beliefs...but in order that you might better understand why I can not believe as you do.

I don't mean to imply that they do. But it seems to me that if such an inaugural address was given today, it would be ridiculed as an attempt to estabolish this new presidents religious beliefs. (although I'm sure you will be able to produce a URL where someone did rebuke Washington for his obviously unconstitutional address

I find it quite difficult to respond to the above thought without an enormous amount of related material being offered first. Far too much material to make it worth the dedication of my available time. What I can do is hope to point you in the direction that might cause you to understand why your statement is somewhat confrontational and biased. First, how well do you know the factual history of Washington's life? Second, how well do you know the factual history of the times in which he made that speech? Third, are you aware that the "majority" of the 1776 colonists considered Washington and his associates to be insurrectionists(terrorists)? Fourth, do you understand the differences between those who believe only in a Creator and those who believe only in a Creator through Christ? Just try to imagine what it is like for those who do not believe in any supernatural Creator...or for those that believe in a different supernatural Creator/creation. What testable evidence do you have that you alone have the only accurate truth? (By-the-way, this is not the appropriate forum in which to offer an answer to that last question. That issue is covered elsewhere.) Lastly, what do you find unconstitutional about Washington's address? The fact that he believed in a supernatural Creator? If fear and ignorance were unconstitutional, we would have failed as a nation long ago.

You could have saved yourself some time and said,'hey check out what this Levy guy says in his book bla bla.) I dont dismiss his work, I dismissed what was shown to me (as I should until I check it out for myself, right??

I can't speak for 'hezekiahjones', but my answer is "Right!" (Leonard W. Levy, is well known to anyone interested in Constitutional history. I make good use of his views in "Origins of the Bill of Rights", Yale University Press, 1999.)

Yes, I have read the memorial & remonstrance before. Excellant piece.

I must assume that you know that its author was James Madison, the acknowledged "Father" of our Constitution. I must also assume, (dangerous to do) that you are aware of all the circumstances surrounding its creation and use in obtaining religious freedom in Virginia. The "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" [in Virginia] was written by Thomas Jefferson. It was finally signed into law on January 19. 1786...just a little over one year before the Constitutional Convention. (In his autobiography, Jefferson states that an effort was made to alter the opening line of the Act to read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." Jefferson contended that in defeating the suggested change the legislators "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomatan, the Hindoo. and the infidel of every denomination."

I hope that some of this information will keep your interest for finding the accurate historical facts fired up. Perhaps you will be able to interest your wife in seeking them also when she sees how important they are to you. Good luck on your quest for accurate knowledge. Unfortunately, I must utilize my time to point to the places where this knowledge may be found rather than using it to fully educate the sincere seekers on every item and nuance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2002, 11:55 AM	#11
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Droxyn: I believe that you will find the following URL, and all hyperlinks, of considerable value concerning the Northwest Ordinance. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm</a>

05-19-2002, 12:25 AM	#13
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Thank you for taking the time to review those URLs. I hope they were informative. I understand what they mean but they could have been clearer. Sorry! I did not find anything confusing about them. Furthermore, they never say who actually finalized the NWO. (Atleast I didnt notice it) Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23rd of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787, and of their soveriegnty and independence the twelfth. Did the CC send their authored version to the House and Senate and then they did't really bother to look at it and just passed it on? I noticed D. Barton says it was signed by Pres Wash. on Aug 7 1789 and no one argued with that. So even if The House & Senate didnt write it they did approve it. You might wish to reread the following URL a little closer. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1c.htm</a> Here is an additional source with which to compare specific dates concerning the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which were submitted as a group) and some additional philosophical/political/social underpinnings for the ratification of the Constitution. <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/abt_const.html" target="_blank">http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/abt_const.html</a> (Excerpt) During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, convened in the summer of 1787, 55 delegates met to amend the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the U.S. However, in its final form, the new Constitution of the United States was substantially rewritten. On September 28, 1787, it was submitted to the 13 states for ratification. By June 1788, nine states had ratified the document. March 4, 1789, was set as the day the new Constitution would take effect. Ratification in most states depended upon the adoption of the Bill of Rights -- as the first proposed amendments to the Constitution. Of the 12 amendments proposed in September 1789, 10 were ratified by the states, and their formal adoption occurred on December 15, 1791. The Articles of Confederation as Precursor to the Constitution The Articles of Confederation, written in 1781, had been explicit in guarding the independence of the states and did not provide for a federal chief executive or judicial system. Any amendment to the Articles of Confederation had required unanimous approval of all the states. The early framers of the Articles had been heavily influenced by the constitutions of individual states and the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence, and were particularly concerned with limiting the powers of the federal government over the states and guaranteeing the freedom of each individual citizen. To allay the fear that a monolithic centralized government in which all power was vested would readily lead to tyranny, the principle of separation of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches was devised. This system of checks and balances would maintain the delicate balance between the authority of the federal government and the rights and liberties of the individual citizen.(End excerpt) (I actually think they meant to keep government out of the Church not vice versa... but that is just a musing, I have absolutely no basis for saying that) Perhaps you will gain some insights by reading the following URL...with special emphasis on # 3. (Please note the date as well.) <a href="http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html</a> I don't know about the whole "they were forced to put that wording in there" thing. Surely the same pressures existed when they were framing the first amendment. Why were they so resolute there and not in the NWO when they passed it? Should you wish to become a serious student of accurate American history concerning this period and these issues, I highly recommend that you read the 82 pages of discussion over the '1st Amendment: Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses' in "The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins" edited by Neil H. Cogan, Oxford University Press, 1997.--- Under the Continental Congress(CC), there were no checks and balances like those found in the Constitutional Congress.---It was the 13th CC that passed the first NWO. It was the 15th CC that became the first Constitutional Congress on 4 Mar 1789, commensurate with Washington's inauguration as President, that continued the approval of the NWO that Washington signed on Aug.7, 1789. (In 1778, Robert Morris said, "The Continental Congress and the currency have greatly depreciated." And that was during the Revolutionary War.)--- I believe that you will find a considerable amount of discussion/debate over the specific wording of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, by those concerned with its religious/non-religious implications on the nation, in the Cogan compilation. However, I suspect that it wasn't until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868 that State's Rights advocates decided that they must find other methods of inserting "their" particular brand of Protestant Christianity into the national psyche. The horrible Civil War between the Christian North and the Christian South had only recently ended. The northern "carpetbaggers" were already raping what was left of the South...just as the Ohio Company attempted to rape and profit from the NWO through their influence in the CC. (I would not be at all surprised if both groups of investors used religion as a means to greater personal profit and wealth.) I also grasp that the NWO by no means estabolished anything anyway. My main intent in posting was to present the thought that in the framers day, religion in the public forum wasnt considered such a horrendous taboo as it is today. Your point is well taken. Nine colonies had established religions as part of their government. In those colonies the only religion that was taboo was any religion/non-religion that was different from the established one. (Big Smile) However, have you done any research on the number of people in those 13 colonies that actually attended church or claimed strong denominational religious beliefs? ---Religion is certainly not taboo in today's public forum. Quite the reverse. That's practically all we hear about from the current administration. You seem to be somewhat confused about what the actual philosophy is behind C-S (religion-government) separation. Droxyn, I doubt that anyone in this forum would deny that the vast majority of early Americans believed in the supernatural and a Creator God. (Just imagine what they might have done to you if you claimed that man would walk on the Moon someday...or that we would uncover enough fossilized bones to reconstruct dinosaurs...or split the atom...or do DNA splicing.) First of all, non-believers could not hold office. Therefore it stands to reason that every member of the Constitutional Convention professed a belief in a supernatural God. However, these unusually wise and experienced men also believed that denominational religious fervor was a threat to a peaceful and prosperous life and country. Therefore they intentionally kept matters of religion (individual expressions of religious or non-religious conscience/belief) out of the federal republic they created...but not the desired ethical/moral values. That is primarily why they created a balance of powers...to help prevent unethical/immoral acts by a single, all-powerful body/individual. By so doing, they protected the minority religious/non-religious beliefs from the oppression of the majority religious/non-religious beliefs. IMHO, that is the greatest gift that they gave to the world. Who said this and in what context??? May I inquire for what purpose you included these quotes? <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878602.html" target="_blank">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878602.html</a>

05-19-2002, 02:18 PM	#16
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Droxyn I can certainly appreciate your dilemma. Obviously you are relatively new to this specific issue and your female partner can't quite appreciate why you would be "wasting your time" trying to delve into the background and intricacies of such a contentious issue with people you don't even know ...and worse yet, don't believe that Jesus Christ is their saviour. On the other hand, I consider your efforts, to date, to be well presented and noteworthy. Unfortunately, you have not been exposed to all these Secular Web forums long enough to gain a full appreciation of what goes on in them or the enormous amount of testable information that can be found here. On a rather regular basis, Christian apologists will enter into these discussions attempting to support "their" supernatural beliefs by advancing out-dated contentions or offering allegations that what isn't...really is, and vice versa. Naturally those who have been here longest have heard and answered, ad nauseam, these identical offerings many times before. It is much like re-inventing the wheel for many of us. However, in your case, I sense a sincere effort to gain an accurate insight into this specific issue...even though, at the moment, it is difficult for you to remove the conditioned sunglasses of Christian dogma long enough to find the accurate facts and how they should be applied to the benefit of everyone...believer and non-believer alike. You are discovering that the history that you thought you knew is nothing like the history as it really was. I agree with you that that can be a very exciting, and addicting, discovery. It can also be a very dangerous discovery for the person who has built their entire world view around invalid superstitions and social myths. No one, whether religionist or non-religionist, if they are capable of being truly honest with themselves, likes discovering that their knowledge is faulty. Why? Well, because if they can be wrong about one belief, then what prevents them from being wrong about many others? It can be a most unsettling "revelation"...an actual life-changing one...and it appears that most humans resist change because it places their concept of survival back at risk. How lets take a look at your most current words. Where do you all find the time to read so much stuff!!! The quick answer is that I have been around longer than you have and I made this subject one of great personal interest many decades ago. Time is the true enemy of all living things. There will never be enough time to do all that one wishes to do. Therefore, one must discipline themselves in such a manner that they make the most of the time that is available to them. I realize that that is elaborating the obvious. However, it is a matter of accurately recognizing priorities and then prioritizing those priorities. Defending the Constitutional interpretations of Church-State separation is high priority on my final list of priorities. I set aside the time to offer the most accurate information I have concerning it to anyone that seeks the information or that would attempt to weaken its constitutionally established status. So my time for scholarly pursuits is quite limited unfortunately...but I shall try. I recognize and truly appreciate your effort to sort through all the, seemingly, conflicting data about how C-S separation should be understood and applied in America. Obviously you have come here with one set of beliefs well established in your mind. Your 'bio' makes that clear. It also alerts me to the possibility that you have not been exposed to all the accurate information that might place those "well-established" beliefs at question. Therefore, I am attempting to expose your mind to additional knowledge...not to attack your beliefs...but in order that you might better understand why I can not believe as you do. I don't mean to imply that they do. But it seems to me that if such an inaugural address was given today, it would be ridiculed as an attempt to estabolish this new presidents religious beliefs. (although I'm sure you will be able to produce a URL where someone did rebuke Washington for his obviously unconstitutional address I find it quite difficult to respond to the above thought without an enormous amount of related material being offered first. Far too much material to make it worth the dedication of my available time. What I can do is hope to point you in the direction that might cause you to understand why your statement is somewhat confrontational and biased. First, how well do you know the factual history of Washington's life? Second, how well do you know the factual history of the times in which he made that speech? Third, are you aware that the "majority" of the 1776 colonists considered Washington and his associates to be insurrectionists(terrorists)? Fourth, do you understand the differences between those who believe only in a Creator and those who believe only in a Creator through Christ? Just try to imagine what it is like for those who do not believe in any supernatural Creator...or for those that believe in a different supernatural Creator/creation. What testable evidence do you have that you alone have the only accurate truth? (By-the-way, this is not the appropriate forum in which to offer an answer to that last question. That issue is covered elsewhere.) Lastly, what do you find unconstitutional about Washington's address? The fact that he believed in a supernatural Creator? If fear and ignorance were unconstitutional, we would have failed as a nation long ago. You could have saved yourself some time and said,'hey check out what this Levy guy says in his book bla bla.) I dont dismiss his work, I dismissed what was shown to me (as I should until I check it out for myself, right?? I can't speak for 'hezekiahjones', but my answer is "Right!" (Leonard W. Levy, is well known to anyone interested in Constitutional history. I make good use of his views in "Origins of the Bill of Rights", Yale University Press, 1999.) Yes, I have read the memorial & remonstrance before. Excellant piece. I must assume that you know that its author was James Madison, the acknowledged "Father" of our Constitution. I must also assume, (dangerous to do) that you are aware of all the circumstances surrounding its creation and use in obtaining religious freedom in Virginia. The "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" [in Virginia] was written by Thomas Jefferson. It was finally signed into law on January 19. 1786...just a little over one year before the Constitutional Convention. (In his autobiography, Jefferson states that an effort was made to alter the opening line of the Act to read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." Jefferson contended that in defeating the suggested change the legislators "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomatan, the Hindoo. and the infidel of every denomination." I hope that some of this information will keep your interest for finding the accurate historical facts fired up. Perhaps you will be able to interest your wife in seeking them also when she sees how important they are to you. Good luck on your quest for accurate knowledge. Unfortunately, I must utilize my time to point to the places where this knowledge may be found rather than using it to fully educate the sincere seekers on every item and nuance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.