Buffman

Jlowder (and Bokonon)

I show the article to be published on 3 July 2002

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28168</a>

Splat

Nice work Bokonon, very nice.

More nitpicking:
"Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly should reexamine his knowledge of American history."

I'd sure drop that "perhaps."

Buffman

Bokonon,

As I said initially, it's a great letter ...containing your thoughts and words. Other than the original T. Paine error, it is just fine. However, since you requested it. Here's my editorial "nit-pick."

1. I am having difficulty with "mending" in the last line of para. #3. Have you considered "transforming/changing/altering/mutating?" I view mending more in the "to fix/repair" category, thus inferring that it is broken and in need of repair. I appreciate that in its intransitive form that it means "to undergo a moral improvement, repair." However, wouldn't that still imply that it was already "broken/immoral?"

2. In the same sentence, (not a thing wrong as is) you might wish to consider if "own purposes" is letting him off the hook too lightly. How about "own agenda/own covert agenda/own religious belief agenda." Perhaps using "personal agenda" would be more accurate. Why is he doing what he is in this article? Merely catering to a constituency to maintain/increase ratings? Or because he sincerely believes the nonsense that he has written? He didn't hesitate to blast Dr.Newdow's position/beliefs. Why should you back off blasting his misinformation/disinformation/propaganda/lies?

3. (Para #5) "While many Christians no doubt lived in the Americas at the time of our nation’s birth..." Why not tell it like it was?

"At the time of our Government's birth, many Americans professed a belief in Christianity. However, The Enlightenment, the study of history and personal experiences had caused many of our most prominent Framing Fathers to move beyond their childhood conditioning in Christianity."

I certainly appreciate 'ex-preacher's' academic credentials in this area....

"Although they had deistic tendencies, it must be noted that John Adams was a Unitarian (believed in the God of the Bible but not in Jesus' divinity or all the miracles) and James Madison and George Washington were Episcopalian."

....and support the accuracy of the official records in this regard, However, I am not quite sure what it means for one to have "deistic tendencies." If they believed in a single Creator God, but made no mention of Jesus Christ/Christianity beyond occasionally attending a Christian religious function, and while in government positions actively worked against the promotion of the Christian Religion over all other belief systems, and did not favor the Christian religion in their private papers (though supporting the need for some form of religious conditioning of the masses), I am inclined to declare that they were "paper" Christians and "private" Deists.

(Many experts in religion and American history have estimated that after the Great Awakening of 1734-50, religious fervor declined to the point that between 1770 and 1800, perhaps only 10-15% of the population were church members. Additionally, one must remember that women and children were not as protected from the reach of many "established" religious-government "state" edicts on church attendance, or permitted many other forms of public socializing in facilities other than their local church building...which acted as the hub for most community social/political/educational gatherings because there were few, if any, "public" owned buildings for such gatherings. (You might wish to research Robert T. Handy for a more accurate insight into my comments.)

4. (Para # 6) "The Declaration of Independence no doubt contains a few references to divinity." --- Again, why not tell it like it is? List the specific references to a divinity that it does contain. IMHO, that could add strength to the rest of the paragraph. As currently written, it seems to be shying away from the facts. At a minimum, at least state the exact number of times a form of non-Christian divinity are listed.

5. (Para # 8) IMHO, this is one of the weaker paragraphs. You might wish to consult "The Legal Heritage" part of this URL:

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

....in order to strengthen it by using For/Against numbers or date comparisons.

6. (Para # 9) "....by the founding fathers." Perhaps "by our government's framing fathers" might be more in keeping with your line of argument (Deist vs Christian). Founding fathers include those who signed the DoI in most minds. Though the DoI did "found" the United States, it did not "found" the government of the federal republic that those states voted to join by ratifying the "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights."

7. Para # 10) "...in government." Perhaps "...by our elected government."

I hope this is the kind of nit-pick you sought.

Alonzo Fyfe

Regarding the paragraph ending:

The Supreme Court questions more Ninth Circuit rulings than any other court largely because there are far more rulings to examine.

Your argument here inexplicably shifts from talking about percentage of cases overturned to talking about absolute numbers -- and seems to be saying that the high percentage of cases overturned can be explained in terms of the high absolute numbers of cases heard. Such an argument would not be valid.

You do make an important point in comparing the 80% chance of overturning a 9th Circuit Court case to the 67% chance of overturning any case it hears.

Oresta

Bokonon,
An Excellent letter!


The phrase "From Madison to Washington" jars my nitpicking ear for chronolgy. I suggest "From Washington to Madison" as western time moves from left to right. (&lt;- This could serve as a straight line for a political joke. Yes?) Also it appears you are referring to these men as founding fathers in their presidential roles. If so, I would suggest being specific.

Bokonon

Thank you everyone. Relevant changes coming...

I have to, uh, respectfully disagree with one point though...

Washington, Adams, and Madison may indeed have been registered Episcopalians, but they were not Christians. They made no public acknowledgements of Christianity that I can find. It should be noted that there was an Epsicopalian church near the White House. It was a church for the high society. Being a member of that church could be considered similar to joining a Country Club of sorts. Not a perfect analogy, but you know what I mean. I'm a confirmed Lutheran. As I heard somewhere: A man's church make not the man.

Bokonon

I agree that paragraph 8 is weak. I went to the website you mentioned, but I don't see how it helps me. I did do most of the other changes suggested however. Thank you everyone. I am submitting it now to <a href="http://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com</a>

****

Don’t Believe It
Donald Lathbury, Jr.

In his July 2 column entitled “Believe it or not,” published in WorldNetDaily, famed pundit Bill O’Reilly presents his case against the Ninth Circuit of Appeals’ recent Pledge of Allegiance ruling. O’Reilly consistently characterizes himself as a true patriot, fighting for the ideals of our founding fathers. However, his article presents a man who distorts his enemies’ positions and blatantly lies about the founding fathers of this nation. Point by point, O’Reilly manipulates reality to substantiate his opinion. For a man who prides himself on his “No Spin Zone,” Mr. O’Reilly’s tactics are particularly disheartening.

All the hoopla began when Dr. Mike Newdow, a lawyer and atheist, became America’s most hated man by successfully petitioning the Ninth Circuit of Appeals to declare the phrase “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by a Socialist Baptist Minister, never contained the phrase “under God.” Congress added the words in 1954 in an effort to distinguish God-fearing Americans from the Atheistic Communists. For a McCarthy era patriot, the implication was quite clear: true Americans believe in the Christian god.

Much has changed since 1954. America once again respects the founding fathers’ intentions to maintain a separation of church and state. One must wonder whether or not O’Reilly’s America believes in such ideals. To present his argument, he first insists on distorting Dr. Newdow’s position. O’Reilly writes, “His (Dr. Newdow’s) goal is to remove all traces of theism from American public life.” O’Reilly knows full well Dr. Newdow holds no such position. In accordance with the founding fathers’ intentions, Dr. Newdow wishes to maintain our secular nation by insisting that our government take no position on any religious matters. Dr. Newdow has no intention of removing theism from public discourse. He in fact encourages such debate amongst America’s populace. Newdow merely demands that the United States Government refrain from endorsing monotheism. By encouraging the recitation of the amended Pledge of Allegiance in most public schools around the country and by distributing money that endorses trust in a singular god, our government currently violates the establishment clause. Mr. O’Reilly assuredly recognizes Dr. Newdow’s actual position but insists on mutating it to suit his own personal agenda.

Following his outlandish misrepresentation of Newdow’s position, O’Reilly decides to attack the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. As O’Reilly accurately claims, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Ninth Circuit about 80 percent of the time. While that statistic may appear shocking at first glance, upon further review, the Ninth Circuit does not stray too far from the other Appellate courts. When the Supreme Court accepts a case from the Appellate, the Court is likely to overturn the ruling. Amongst all cases accepted by the highest court in the land, 67 percent become overturned. The Ninth Circuit encompasses a huge population, far more than any other Circuit Court. Over 55 million Americans reside in the Ninth Circuit. Nearly 20 percent of all Americans live in the Ninth Circuit. As such, they see far more cases than any other appellate court. The Supreme Court questions more Ninth Circuit rulings than any other court largely because there are far more rulings to examine.

Later in his piece, O’Reilly boldly claims, “…the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the Founders framed the Constitution around God-given rights.” While many Christians no doubt lived in the Americas at the time of our nation’s birth, many of the most prominent founding fathers professed absolutely no faith in the Christian god. Living during the height of the Enlightenment, many of the intellectuals of the late 18th century disassociated themselves from their Christian roots and adopted a new ethos. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin all adhered to a Deist philosophy. George Washington most likely adhered to a Deist philosophy as well, for he refused to publicly profess his faith and further refused to publicly pray. The founding fathers possessed great foresight by refraining from any mention of a deity in our Constitution. They wished for our government to become non-theistic (not atheistic!) while still ensuring religious freedoms for all Americans. Written during Washington’s term and signed into law during Adam’s term, the Treaty of Tripoli states, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The Senate unanimously approved the treaty. Protestant thought no doubt influenced most of the founding fathers. However, to claim that the United States “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles” ignores the true religious beliefs of at least four of the most influential founding fathers, including at least three that would later hold the highest office of the land.

To support his position, Mr. O’Reilly cites the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence no doubt contains a few references to divinity. It even states, “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Of course, O’Reilly neglects to mention the fact that the Creator Jefferson speaks of bears little resemblance to the Christian god. Of all the non-radical founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson represented the most vocal force against Christianity’s intrusion in government. In his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson wrote, “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Jefferson and the other founding fathers witnessed the religious conflicts that enveloped Europe for centuries. They desired to make the blossoming young American nation free from religious dogma, especially the intrusive elements of Christianity.

Following his flawed presentation of the Declaration of Independence, O’Reilly writes, “The author of the Constitution, James Madison, joined with the first Congress to pass a law paying chaplains for the House and the Senate with public monies.” With this statement, one must question the intellectual credibility of O’Reilly. In fact, the exact opposite of what O’Reilly says is true. James Madison voted against the law! He disapproved of their actions. In regards to the law, James Madison wrote, “…it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets.” Madison disapproved of the paying of the chaplain with public monies. Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly should reexamine his knowledge of American history.

Mr. O’Reilly cites various Supreme Court decisions that support his position. One should note that the Supreme Court has been known to overturn past rulings. Indeed, there was a time in this nation when “separate but equal” was deemed perfectly acceptable. The Supreme Court ever changes its position with the passing of time. With regards to the establishment cause, one can only hope it returns to the intentions of the founding fathers.

In summarizing what he feels the “under God” ruling truly represents, O’Reilly states, “These people are not looking out for their country, they are trying to impose a narrow set of secular standards on a nation that was founded on principles that are much greater.” The secular standards desired by Dr. Newdow mesh nicely with the secular standards desired by our government’s framing fathers. From Washington to Madison, the founding fathers insisted on a firm adherence to the establishment clause. The founding fathers wished for this nation to remain a secular nation. Only then could it flourish away from the dogma and superstitions of the European theocracies. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” The state should play no role in restricting or expanding any belief in a deity.

Despite what O’Reilly may or may not think, there is no vast Atheistic liberal conspiracy to ban the mere utterance of god in public discourse. The “anti-God squad” merely wishes to remove the unconstitutional endorsements of one religion over another in government. Those in the private and public sector can believe in one god, no god, or many gods. Dr. Newdow and those who support him simply desire an America where those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian god are not viewed as second-class citizens. Whether intentionally or otherwise, throughout his piece, O’Reilly misinterprets many individuals’ positions. Mr. O’Reilly must adhere to the intellectual honesty he so demands from his opponents. To quote the man himself, “The spin stops here.”

lpetrich

Ann Coulter seems exceptionally venomous -- it's like she wishes she was an NKVD officer during the days of Stalin's purges; she seems like she'd enjoy sending to gulags supposed enemies of the people.

Loki

Just thought I'd drop in and give two thumbs up and thank you for taking such initiative in this cause.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: AquaRegia ]</p>

Splat

Nice work Bokonon. I hope they publish this. If not, I hope you'll find someplace that will.