Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-31-2002, 10:53 PM

And speaking of bad history, here's the text of a resolution proclaiming <a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3133278.html" target="_blank">Christian Heritage Week</a> inadvertently signed by Jesse Ventura:

Quote:

The Christian Heritage Week proclamation, which was signed Wednesday by Gov. Jesse Ventura's office, reads:

WHEREAS: The Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota states that, "We the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our [?is evil a typo for civil???] evil and religious liberty, and desiring [to] perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution"; and

WHEREAS: Benjamin Franklin, and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 stated, "It is impossible to build an empire without our Father's aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it"; and

WHEREAS: George Washington enunciated, "Animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity"; and

WHEREAS: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God"; and

WHEREAS: James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution, advocated, "The diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation" in his Memorial and Remonstrance; and

WHEREAS: Patrick Henry quoted Proverbs 14:34 for our nation, "Righteousness alone can exalt a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people"; and

WHEREAS: George Mason, in his Virginia Declaration of Rights, forerunner of our U.S. Bill of Rights, affirmed, "That it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other"; and

WHEREAS: These, and many other truly great men and women of America, giants in the structuring of American history, were Christian statesmen for caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith."

NOW THEREFORE, I, JESSE VENTURA, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that the week of October 13 through October 19, 2002, shall be observed as:

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK

There are some busy little Christian quote factories out there. The quotes from Franklin and Washington are particulary unlikely. And the gall it takes to claim that Madison advocated "the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation" in his Memorial and Remonstrance, a work better noted for the quote:

Quote:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Although Madison did say:

Quote:

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

What Washington actually said:

Regarding tolerance for Catholics, Washington wrote March 15, 1790: "I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution.or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.... May the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."

edited to add: a more complete version of what Washington said, from <a href="http://www.ls.net/~newriver/va/catholicva.htm" target="_blank">The Catholic Church in Virginia</a>:

General Washington himself, in appreciation of the conspicuous part taken by Catholics in the Revolutionary war, addressed them as follows, under date of March 12, 1790: "To the Roman Catholics of the United States of America: I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality. And I presume that your fellow citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their revolution and the establishment of your government, or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed. May the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 01:17 AM

But now that Proclamation is one more egregious and spurious piece of "Official," radical, Christian propaganda to prove that Gov. Ventura was a closet Christian all along. The wall of historical lies is getting taller and deeper.

What Franklin actually said was, "And if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this;..."

This was part of Franklin's 29 June plea (motion) to have prayers said before every meeting by one or more members of the local clergy so the convention would get back on track after "The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other...". Mr. Sherman seconded the motion. After discussions led by "Mr. Hamilton & several others," and several attempts at ajournment, the session was adjourned without a vote. No prayers were ever delivered in the Convention.

I am afraid that I just lost a good deal of respect for Jesse's, up till now, stalwart effort to separate fact from fiction and maintain a neutral position concerning a specific religion's celebration of itself. What a historically appalling document for Christians to use as the foundation for a week of celebrating their faith beliefs!

This propaganda onslaught is succeeding because of American ignorance or indifference. When will the majority of the rational Christian community discover that they are being used to help corrupt everyone's constitutional liberties and rights? The real terrorists are not beyond our shores. The external enemies of America can not defeat us. However, we can defeat ourselves from within, and are well on the path to doing exactly that in the name of a religious cult of the Christian sect.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

(Added)

Perhaps the most disengenuous part of that whole Christian Week Proclamation is the fact that they used four "Deists" out of six people quoted to promote their Christian belief system. How sad...and how clever.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

RichardMorey · 08-01-2002, 08:24 AM

Buffman:

Quote:

But now that Proclamation is one more egregious and spurious piece of "Official," radical, Christian propaganda to prove that Gov. Ventura was a closet Christian all along.

Ventura says he signed the resolution accidentally; I believe him. It was a stupid thing to do, but not as stupid as actually believing the stuff.

RichardMorey · 08-01-2002, 11:03 AM

I have added a few things, cleaned it up, and made it do that it is in the same format as the original act.

<a href="http://bengal.missouri.edu/~moreyr/pledge.html" target="_blank">http://bengal.missouri.edu/~moreyr/pledge.html</a>

I think we should strive to be non-confrontational. Let's stick to straightforward facts and mainstream interpretation of the facts. But we still have lots to add.

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 01:11 PM

RichardMorey

Thank you. I type with two fingers and little PC technical expertise. The second draft I forwarded was a complete mess. Your HTML expertise has given it a framework and professional class that I never could have provided.

Your additions/corrections/thoughts are most welcome. However, the question still remains. "Is there enough here to justify continuing to persue this approach?" I had only done serious research on the first six items and cursory checks on the remaining ten...to which I attached comments aimed more at myself than a final reading audience.

I agree that this should be an educational statement of historical fact that calls attention to error, or overt manipulation by some unknown author, rather than a collection of personal opinions.

My preliminary thought was to find some method of exposing S-2690 as a deeply flawed document...if in fact I could prove that it was. As I researched it, I began to become concerened that my efforts could be viewed as merely nit-picking and not providing a solid indictment of the Act as written. That is why I had hoped to find assistance and comment from others. (i.e.: Yes, it has merit. No, it needs more meat. You are wasting your time. Send copies to xxxxxx. Amplify/delete this/that. Were you aware of this/that? Etc.) IOW, I was becoming overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task I had set for myself.(As I mentioned to you, that Washington quote took almost two full days of research to locate.)

I can only invite as many folks as possible to review and comment on what has been exposed to this point...now that you have masterfully placed it in a format that is far easier to read and understand.

(Note: When a Governor admits a mistake, what might he do to correct it? Perhaps an "Official" document admitting the error?)

RichardMorey · 08-01-2002, 02:00 PM

You've done most of the hard work (the quotes). Much of the remaining issues are inside Supreme Court Opinions, and they are readily found (As I linked to them).

The problem is that all these things were dealt with in the Ninth Circuit Courts opinion (which I am reading now). They didn't read it before signing this document, I am sure. Perhaps we should just be redundant and repeat the Ninth Circuit court's reasoning. Oh, and I added the little bit concerning O'Connor's concurring opinion in (13). I think the rest of the court cases can be dealt with that way.

Toto · 08-01-2002, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buffman:

(Note: When a Governor admits a mistake, what might he do to correct it? Perhaps an "Official" document admitting the error?)

He could proclaim National Atheist Heritage Week. There's another thread on CHW now - read it <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic&f=59&t=000547&go=new er" target="_blank">here - Ventura accidentally proclaims "Christian Heritage Week"</a>. Perhaps the Minnesota Atheists could make it into a project.

Back to S 2690 - thanks to Richard Morey!

First a question - is "under God" a Christian slogan, a Deistic slogan, or an empty formality? I don't think that this Senate Bill can make up its mind, but deciding that may influence the best attack.

If "under God" is an empty formality, it does not tend to establish a religion. So the Christians win, but then they lose, because the slogan has no meaning at all.

If under God is "ceremonial Deism", you can give the word "God" any interpretation you want (Christian God, Isis, Zeus, any higher power, human spirit, etc.) The only people left out are hard core atheists, or perhaps pantheists who object to "under" because God is everywhere. (See <a href="http://www.pledgeproject.com" target="_blank">www.pledgeproject.com</a> for that point of view.)

If "under God" is a Christian slogan, then it is definitely a violation of the First Amendment, so no one wants to support that.

My 2 cents on <a href="http://bengal.missouri.edu/~moreyr/pledge.html" target="_blank">your comments</a> point by point:

1. It is nitpicking to say that the Mayflower Compact was signed on this continent rather than prior to embarking, but it is not nitpicking to point out that the Compact is not an official document of this country. It should be entitled to no more respect than a Buddhist prayer offered by an Asian immigrant before embarking to California to work on the railroad.

2. The quote is correct, as are your comments.

3. The quotes are taken out of context, and tend to make Jefferson out to be a much more religious person than he actually was.

4. Your comments are quite appropriate. It shows how far a historian has to go to find a pro-God quote from Washington.

5. In this case, Christian apologists are wrong to rely on the Northwest Ordinance to claim government support for religion. But the Senate is only quoting it here as a general pro-religion statement, although there is nothing in the Ordinance about "under God". So it is not an egregious error, but it does not support their case.

6. This is historically true.

7. I wouldn't dump on Lincoln. I think that his own views on religion tended more towards Deism. (I will try to look it up later.) In any case, this only supports the "empty formality" theory of "under God".

8. I am sure that Justice Douglas is quoted because he is considered to be a radical left winger, a favorite of the ACLU. But his record is very much in favor of accommodating religious practices. I am suprized that they didn't quote, from the same opinion, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Unfortunately Douglas based his opinion on little more than "common sense" and never developed a good theoretical underpinning for his First Amendment opinions.

9. (This refers to the original act in 1954 adding "under God" to the Pledge, but does not give the context or legislative history.)

10. Your comments in IGWT are quite apt.

11. These quotes are irrelevant. It is one thing to take notice of religion and accomodate it. It is quite another to start legislating an offical prayer or invocation of a Deity.

12. (use this link to Lynch: <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/465/668.html" target="_blank">http://laws.findlaw.com/us/465/668.html</a> )

If the Ninth Circuit had followed the drift of this case (as opposed to its actual holding), it would have ruled against Newdow because the Pledge was too trivial. But it is hard to find any logic in this case.

13. Your comments on O'Connor's statements are correct.

14. I would omit your comment. It is true that the Seventh Circuit upheld "under God" in the Pledge, although it is not a binding precedent on the Ninth Circuit.

15. Your comments are right on.

16. The Senate is being silly. "In the Year of Our Lord" is the English translation of Anno Domini, and has no religious signficance for most of the world, it is just a common dating scheme. Furthermore, I have never heard of a teacher leading a class recitation of the US Constitution. The Constitution is to be read and pondered, not recited as a mantra or prayer.

RichardMorey · 08-01-2002, 03:55 PM

Thanks for the comments. I'd like to get a list of everyone who has worked on it thus far so I can add them to the end of the document, to properly credit them. How many people have added to it?

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 09:59 PM

You and I.

I would like to see all those folks who sent letters to their Senators take a look at this and decide if they should extract some info and send their Senators another letter that opens with something like..."Is this the quality of the history that you voted for and support?" (But then, I'm still rather frustrated by all the outright revisionist history being tossed about and believed.) Until the people in positions to do something about these issues have the accurate facts, there is almost no way their faulty views can be arrested and reversed.

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 10:02 PM

I did send copies of my original messy draft to Toto and GaryP. However, I do not recall using any specific input from either in the copy I sent you.

Ooooops! I just read your input, Toto. Thank you.

To be fair, I think that every opinion should be considered as input and therefore add both Toto and GaryP to the list of contributors...if they are willing.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

08-01-2002, 01:17 AM	#12
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	But now that Proclamation is one more egregious and spurious piece of "Official," radical, Christian propaganda to prove that Gov. Ventura was a closet Christian all along. The wall of historical lies is getting taller and deeper. What Franklin actually said was, "And if a sparrow can not fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this;..." This was part of Franklin's 29 June plea (motion) to have prayers said before every meeting by one or more members of the local clergy so the convention would get back on track after "The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other...". Mr. Sherman seconded the motion. After discussions led by "Mr. Hamilton & several others," and several attempts at ajournment, the session was adjourned without a vote. No prayers were ever delivered in the Convention. I am afraid that I just lost a good deal of respect for Jesse's, up till now, stalwart effort to separate fact from fiction and maintain a neutral position concerning a specific religion's celebration of itself. What a historically appalling document for Christians to use as the foundation for a week of celebrating their faith beliefs! This propaganda onslaught is succeeding because of American ignorance or indifference. When will the majority of the rational Christian community discover that they are being used to help corrupt everyone's constitutional liberties and rights? The real terrorists are not beyond our shores. The external enemies of America can not defeat us. However, we can defeat ourselves from within, and are well on the path to doing exactly that in the name of a religious cult of the Christian sect. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ] (Added) Perhaps the most disengenuous part of that whole Christian Week Proclamation is the fact that they used four "Deists" out of six people quoted to promote their Christian belief system. How sad...and how clever. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

08-01-2002, 10:02 PM	#20
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	I did send copies of my original messy draft to Toto and GaryP. However, I do not recall using any specific input from either in the copy I sent you. Ooooops! I just read your input, Toto. Thank you. To be fair, I think that every opinion should be considered as input and therefore add both Toto and GaryP to the list of contributors...if they are willing. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

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

08-01-2002, 11:03 AM	#14
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	I have added a few things, cleaned it up, and made it do that it is in the same format as the original act. <a href="http://bengal.missouri.edu/~moreyr/pledge.html" target="_blank">http://bengal.missouri.edu/~moreyr/pledge.html</a> I think we should strive to be non-confrontational. Let's stick to straightforward facts and mainstream interpretation of the facts. But we still have lots to add.

08-01-2002, 01:11 PM	#15
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	RichardMorey Thank you. I type with two fingers and little PC technical expertise. The second draft I forwarded was a complete mess. Your HTML expertise has given it a framework and professional class that I never could have provided. Your additions/corrections/thoughts are most welcome. However, the question still remains. "Is there enough here to justify continuing to persue this approach?" I had only done serious research on the first six items and cursory checks on the remaining ten...to which I attached comments aimed more at myself than a final reading audience. I agree that this should be an educational statement of historical fact that calls attention to error, or overt manipulation by some unknown author, rather than a collection of personal opinions. My preliminary thought was to find some method of exposing S-2690 as a deeply flawed document...if in fact I could prove that it was. As I researched it, I began to become concerened that my efforts could be viewed as merely nit-picking and not providing a solid indictment of the Act as written. That is why I had hoped to find assistance and comment from others. (i.e.: Yes, it has merit. No, it needs more meat. You are wasting your time. Send copies to xxxxxx. Amplify/delete this/that. Were you aware of this/that? Etc.) IOW, I was becoming overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task I had set for myself.(As I mentioned to you, that Washington quote took almost two full days of research to locate.) I can only invite as many folks as possible to review and comment on what has been exposed to this point...now that you have masterfully placed it in a format that is far easier to read and understand. (Note: When a Governor admits a mistake, what might he do to correct it? Perhaps an "Official" document admitting the error?)

08-01-2002, 02:00 PM	#16
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	You've done most of the hard work (the quotes). Much of the remaining issues are inside Supreme Court Opinions, and they are readily found (As I linked to them). The problem is that all these things were dealt with in the Ninth Circuit Courts opinion (which I am reading now). They didn't read it before signing this document, I am sure. Perhaps we should just be redundant and repeat the Ninth Circuit court's reasoning. Oh, and I added the little bit concerning O'Connor's concurring opinion in (13). I think the rest of the court cases can be dealt with that way.

08-01-2002, 03:55 PM	#18
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	Thanks for the comments. I'd like to get a list of everyone who has worked on it thus far so I can add them to the end of the document, to properly credit them. How many people have added to it?

08-01-2002, 09:59 PM	#19
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	You and I. I would like to see all those folks who sent letters to their Senators take a look at this and decide if they should extract some info and send their Senators another letter that opens with something like..."Is this the quality of the history that you voted for and support?" (But then, I'm still rather frustrated by all the outright revisionist history being tossed about and believed.) Until the people in positions to do something about these issues have the accurate facts, there is almost no way their faulty views can be arrested and reversed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.