The Boy (Scouts) Aren't Back ... In School

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Boy Scouts Drop Public School Ties
Churches are being urged to fill the void.
By JEFF ROBINSON

(BP (http://www.bpnews.net/)) The Boy Scouts of America is removing the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools after an American Civil Liberties Union threat to sue taxpayer-funded institutions that charter BSA units.

The ACLU sent a letter to the Boy Scouts of America in February . . .

The rest of this article found here: Religious News Service and Christian News (http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=2041)

--------------------

This is sad beyond belief. I've come to the conclusion, government (public) school is good for nothing.

[Melz]

The ACLU is what scares me. They seem to have the power to make anyone do what they want. They extortion and bully to get what they want. That alone is scary, but I don't even understand the organization. Is it so filled with hate that it cannot stop from picking on the Boy Scouts even? Has it run out of adults to pick on??? Do those folks ever stop hating and show some support for anyone in this country??

[CzechPrince]

The original intent of the ACLU, as with Unions, were noble. I think it is good to have watchdog groups keeping the government in check, however, over the years they have become so biased and agenda oriented it's absurd.

[Melz]

In a sense I agree Czech, I like the idea of groups helping out the little guy, especially back when groups needed it the most. But helping someone has turned into hating everyone. For instance, in the anti-boyscout thing. Who the heck do they think they were helping? Shouldn't their actions always support a person or group rather than drag down a person or group. They have moved from support to oppression, which is the entire opposite reason for the group's creation. Hmmm..maybe it has to do with their leaders. Still, a hateful group who needs to be put in its place, somehow.

[american kid]

This whole ACLU thing, it should be called The American Criminal Liberties Union, as Mark Levine once said.

[DoctorDoom]

As long as the Scouts refuse to welcome faggots and atheists into their ranks, the Assholes, Crackpots and Loonies Union will continue to persecute them. I'd like to see every one of those scurrilous sons of bitches lined up against a wall and machine-gunned.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

I can understand the joy you may have when you see your enemy killed for his free expression or when exercising his right to petition. But do you support his right to bear arms? Is an armed lesbian better than a pacifist ACLU lawyer?

Which would you prefer if you had to choose?

[Melz]

The ACLU is hardly just acting in "free expression" if that is what you were referring to. They extortion money out of companies, they bully Christians, white people and heterosexuals. They have enough money and power that they are not so limited to simply "expressing" themselves freely. A lot of liberals like to use that phrase when defending even criminal activity. It is over used and out of context when talking of the ACLU.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I can understand the joy you may have when you see your enemy killed for his free expression or when exercising his right to petition. But do you support his right to bear arms? Is an armed lesbian better than a pacifist ACLU lawyer?

Which would you prefer if you had to choose?

As the Moderator of the Education Forum, PDD, I am asking you to either stick to the topic or refrain from posting here, most especially posts aimed at aggravating other members. This particular thread is regarding the ACLU and the Boy Scouts -- please liimit your posts to this topic. Thank you.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

As the Moderator of the Education Forum, PDD, I am asking you to either stick to the topic or refrain from posting here, most especially posts aimed at aggravating other members. This particular thread is regarding the ACLU and the Boy Scouts -- please liimit your posts to this topic. Thank you.

You're right. I am off topic.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

It appears the Boy Scouts have been deemed a private religious organization, and as such, are entirely permitted to discriminate on religious grounds. The ACLU wants to end the state sponsorship that the Boy Scouts enjoy. I am for that.

I support local scouts who come to my door to ask for donations or provide services (xmas tree recycling is one I remember). But I don't think I should have to pay taxes that are spent on the Boy Scouts, nor should anyone else!

P-D-D

[PostDoctoralDoom]

The ACLU is hardly just acting in "free expression" if that is what you were referring to. They extortion money out of companies, they bully Christians, white people and heterosexuals. They have enough money and power that they are not so limited to simply "expressing" themselves freely. A lot of liberals like to use that phrase when defending even criminal activity. It is over used and out of context when talking of the ACLU.

No, I was referring to petition.

I don't believe that Christians, whites or heterosexuals occupy a status in this country any different than anyone else (except for minors and convicts). The Boy Scouts and the ACLU behavior you cite are both reprehensible, because they aim to exclude others based on demographics and not character. There are fine gays and lesbians in this country; it is likely that we have already had a gay president and vice president (Buchanan and King). Perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt was a lesbian.

[Melz]

Well the Boy Scouts and their not allowing gays is understandable to me, it is perverse behaviour. I know there are fine gay folks out there and to be excluded from helping the scouts would FEEL like discrimination, I don't remember gays being a protected group. Race and religion are protected groups though.

and the ACLU has their hand in every cookie jar, not just this one. You will find that many of my rants are about that organization, as I am truly appalled at their status and power level here in this country.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Well the Boy Scouts and their not allowing gays is understandable to me, it is perverse behaviour. I know there are fine gay folks out there and to be excluded from helping the scouts would FEEL like discrimination, I don't remember gays being a protected group. Race and religion are protected groups though.

and the ACLU has their hand in every cookie jar, not just this one. You will find that many of my rants are about that organization, as I am truly appalled at their status and power level here in this country.

You are correct that race and religion are protected groups. Some states extend those protections, but not all, to other classes of individuals.

The gays are not due Boy Scout membership, but to be supported by the taxpayers, you cannot illegally discriminate.

Would you object to supporting the religion of Islam in this country with your tax dollars?

[Melz]

Well dear, they are already using tax dollars in an effort to rid this country of Christianity so I suspect that your "for instance" suggestion may not be a far off event.

Conservatives have a lot of issues as to where their tax dollars go, so I could list the things I wish them not to go to. That suggestion of yours would be included. Wish I had the power that the ACLU did to allocate tax dollars, they would be the first organization suffering at this moment.

We agree to disagree it appears..no harm in that. I am more right winged than a lot of folks.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Perhaps more conservatives should apply for jobs at the ACLU. They could conceivable apply and work there.

However, an atheist cannot join the boy scouts. That's a little different.

I harbor no persecutorial fantasies about Christians in this country. Everyone knows that this country has a Christian majority. And there is nothing wrong about that. However, the country was founded by non-Christian deists who, if indeed are claimed to be Christian, failed at every instance to even subtly Christianize it. Yes, the country insofar as its government should not be Christian, and should be rid of it, as you put it. But the free practise of it should not be hindered, so long as that practise does not include the denial of the same to others or require anything Christian from those not so inclined.

[DoctorDoom]

Another liberal is given access to the asylum's computer room. Jeez!

Kid, if you think it's so terrible the the BSA is supported in part by taxpayers, why not ask the taxpayers about it? Or are you afraid of the response that you'd get?

Aside from queers, atheists, and the Without A-CLU, no one is bitching about it. And since they are a very small minority, their opinions do NOT represent the majority viewpoint.

There is no logical reason to discontinue the funding of the BSA at the behest of insatiable, obnoxious liberaloonies with their heads up their asses.

And BTW, there is ONLY ONE DOOM! Accept no shallow, ineffectual wannabes.

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

I harbor no persecutorial fantasies about Christians in this country. Everyone knows that this country has a Christian majority. And there is nothing wrong about that. However, the country was founded by non-Christian deists who, if indeed are claimed to be Christian, failed at every instance to even subtly Christianize it

If you think George Washington added so help me God because he was a deist you are boldly mistaken.

There is no writing by any of the founding fathers except possibly Thomas Jefferson to show they were not christian. You are a liberal though, so obviously you would always side with the minority in a democracy. Just like the ACLU.

To be honest, I dont want my tax dollars going to schools, welfare, foodstamps, roads, or anything else that can be privatized. The boy scouts can indeed be privatized.

Government organizations like the ACLU add to beuracracy and should be canned altogether, especially any organization that discrimenates in the name of equality.

e·qual·i·ty http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dequality) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-kwhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. e·qual·i·ties

The state or quality of being equal.
e·qual http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dequal) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifkwhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl)
adj.


<LI type=a>Having the same privileges, status, or rights: <CITE>equal before the law.</CITE>
Being the same for all members of a group: <CITE>gave every player an equal chance to win.</CITE>


Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation
Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.

In other words the same! Wow what a concept, we all have equal rights as protected by the constitution already? Whites cant throw people in jail and burn non christians? Whites and christians arent the scum of the earth?

Time to can the ACLU.
Article XV. Section

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My point exactly. The ACLU has been obsolete for 130 years (ha... it has always been obsolete!!) Only thing we needed was a government that actually upheld the law but i guess that will never happen. Atleast not until the ACLU goes away.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Another liberal is given access to the asylum's computer room. Jeez!

Kid, if you think it's so terrible the the BSA is supported in part by taxpayers, why not ask the taxpayers about it? Or are you afraid of the response that you'd get?

Aside from queers, atheists, and the Without A-CLU, no one is bitching about it. And since they are a very small minority, their opinions do NOT represent the majority viewpoint.

There is no logical reason to discontinue the funding of the BSA at the behest of insatiable, obnoxious liberaloonies with their heads up their asses.

And BTW, there is ONLY ONE DOOM! Accept no shallow, ineffectual wannabes.

I would fear a mob or a tyranny as our founders did, I am not ashamed to say that. My name is not "Kid." That appears disrespectful, and I don't want to conclude that conservatism presupposes crass comments.

Majority viewpoints could support all sorts of illegal, immoral and ill-advised behavior. I suggest you read some of our founding documents (I presume you are in America), namely, the federalist papers. Much disdain for the tyranny of the majority.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

If you think George Washington added so help me God because he was a deist you are boldly mistaken.

There is no writing by any of the founding fathers except possibly Thomas Jefferson to show they were not christian. You are a liberal though, so obviously you would always side with the minority in a democracy. Just like the ACLU.



The term democracy is used in this country to denote elected representatives of the people, and power held by the people, not royal families.

Our official style of government is that of a republic. The rule of law is what we are about. In this country, there is no law respecting an establishment of religion, and no religious test for office.

Are you saying you are against our constitution???

[Apollo5600]

Concerning George Washington:

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
---------------
Where is the ACLU when you need them?

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Where is the ACLU when you need them?


Why, they're defending the civil liberties of religious Americans, the dirty bastards.
CHARLESTON, WV — The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia yesterday asked a federal judge to issue a summary ruling in favor of a minister who declines, for religious reasons, to have his photograph taken for a drivers' license.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Rev. Benjamin David Daniel Cyrus of Garrardstown in December in federal court in Charleston after the state refused to issue him a drivers' license without a photograph.


http://www.firmstand.org/news/church_of_firstborn.html

[PostDoctoralDoom]

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

There they go again! Defending Falwell, the liberal infidel himself!

[Apollo5600]

A show, I have seen them deny helping a Teacher in School who was fired for wearing a religious symbol. I have seen them fight against displays of the 10 commandments, and so on and so forth because of an asshole who was offended. (Where in the constitution is the right no to be offended?)

Notice in George's time, there were no ACLU trying to Remove God from government/public because they would of been laughed out of court. (Court btw, the only possible place they could win)


Our official style of government is that of a republic. The rule of law is what we are about. In this country, there is no law respecting an establishment of religion, and no religious test for office.
Are you saying you are against our constitution???

I am not so sure you understand the constitution.
Considering that the 1A reads "Congress shall make no law", and since Public Schools are not Congress making a law, I'd say we were pretty safe.


You are right that we are a Republic, a Republic under God. In the declaration it reads we are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights, and that government is there to protect these unalienable rights. Want to know what that means? It means that these facts are the foundation of our current government, it means are rights are not given to us by a sheet of paper.

So why then would government distance itself from all mention of a Creator when it's very survival depends on Him? The moment rights do come from a piece of paper, is the moment we lose our rights.


BTW, could that Proclamation of been made in the year 2005 under the new Liberal difinition of the 1a?

[Apollo5600]

Boy Scouts open their meetings by holding three fingers aloft and repeating an oath in which members vow their allegiance to God and country, resolve to help others and commit to keeping themselves morally straight. Central to the BSA's stated mission is character development and values-based leadership training.

Nowonder the liberals hate them so bad, all of it is against the Lib religion!
Notice also that Belief in God is eternally connected to staying morally straight. The spawn of Satan atheist has no reason NOT to be the biggest asshole he wants to be, morality is relative to him, so his word is as good as shit.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

I am not so sure you understand the constitution.
Considering that the 1A reads "Congress shall make no law", and since Public Schools are not Congress making a law, I'd say we were pretty safe.


You are right that we are a Republic, a Republic under God. In the declaration it reads we are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights, and that government is there to protect these unalienable rights. Want to know what that means? It means that these facts are the foundation of our current government, it means are rights are not given to us by a sheet of paper.

So why then would government distance itself from all mention of a Creator when it's very survival depends on Him? The moment rights do come from a piece of paper, is the moment we lose our rights.




BTW, could that Proclamation of been made in the year 2005 under the new Liberal difinition of the 1a?

Yes, you are not so sure I understand the constitution. You do know that because it allows amendment, the amends may change the previous meaning. So, please consider all amendments when you read it. You need to understand the incorporation doctrine.

You should also know that *today,* the declaration, while fine with me, is not a document of legal standing in the United States. The Constitution superceded any legal status the declaration had. You may worship it at the risk of contradicting the 10 commandments.

I understand your natural law point of view, but you missed the fine point: that it is the people who are endowed with natural rights, and government in turn is empowered by the people. You can't make the jump past the people and say there is a God empowering our government. Please read the DOI again: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." No God in government there, is there? But yes, Jefferson did hold the deist enlightenment ideals of the day, his was a natural law, and God was dead for him as it was for the other deists.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Nowonder the liberals hate them so bad, all of it is against the Lib religion!
Notice also that Belief in God is eternally connected to staying morally straight. The spawn of Satan atheist has no reason NOT to be the biggest asshole he wants to be, morality is relative to him, so his word is as good as shit.

Your words are harsh and untrue, what would you like me to conclude from them? I don't hate the Boy Scouts, I support them, but only at my choice. Are you against my freedom?

I am very aware that every one's choice in religious belief is made by weighing the moral benefit of adhering. This can only be done from a moral calculus that is outside that of the religion itself, or else there is no choice.

[Apollo5600]

Yes, you are not so sure I understand the constitution. You do know that because it allows amendment, the amends may change the previous meaning. So, please consider all amendments when you read it. You need to understand the incorporation doctrine.

Ummmm what?? So now the 1a doesn't read "Congress shall make no Law.. etc etc", what does it mean now and why does it mean it??? All using the Constitution ofcourse.

You should also know that *today,* the declaration, while fine with me, is not a document of legal standing in the United States. The Constitution superceded any legal status the declaration had. You may worship it at the risk of contradicting the 10 commandments.

That sure is typical, so now I worship the Declaration? You say "today" the document is not of legal standing in the U.S? So that means back "Then" it was? It certainly was everything the Founders Believed in and fought for, and was (and is, even though heathens reject it) the foundation of the government "They" setup!

I understand your natural law point of view, but you missed the fine point: that it is the people who are endowed with natural rights, and government in turn is empowered by the people. You can't make the jump past the people and say there is a God empowering our government. Please read the DOI again: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." No God in government there, is there?

Only because you left him out!: 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights......

Government is there to protect these God given Rights, not give them to us. Try again buttwipe.

But yes, Jefferson did hold the deist enlightenment ideals of the day, his was a natural law, and God was dead for him as it was for the other deists.

Doesn't look like it from what I read, or from what Washington spoke! Concerning Jefferson btw: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006 (Thomas Jefferson, Deist or Christian?)


But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

[Apollo5600]

Your words are harsh and untrue, what would you like me to conclude from them?

They weren't addressed to you, I was commenting on the article.

I don't hate the Boy Scouts, I support them, but only at my choice. Are you against my freedom?

Smoking pot I see.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Smoking pot I see.

You need to see an optician, then, if that is what you see. :devilange

[Apollo5600]

You need to see an optician, then, if that is what you see.

lol

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Ummmm what?? So now the 1a doesn't read "Congress shall make no Law.. etc etc", what does it mean now and why does it mean it??? All using the Constitution ofcourse.


Sure. It is called the 14th amendment. But yes, the 1st amendment did not get edited. What happened is that the 14th changed the narrow limitation against federal government to a broader limitation against the states. Google it for gosh sakes: "incorporation doctrine." Remember that there are three braches of government, as written in the constitution. (I write that in anticipation of your condemnation of the same.)



That sure is typical, so now I worship the Declaration? You say "today" the document is not of legal standing in the U.S? So that means back "Then" it was? It certainly was everything the Founders Believed in and fought for, and was (and is, even though heathens reject it) the foundation of the government "They" setup!


Well, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. And, it does not refer to the declaration, therefore, it is nothing in terms of legal papers. Historical, yes. An insight to Jefferson and the signer's intentions, yes.


Only because you left him out!: 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights......

Government is there to protect these God given Rights, not give them to us. Try again buttwipe.


It is you that remains soiled. Jefferson held common enlightenment views. Very common for the day. Natural law was opposed to the feudal system, where some men ruled by divine right. The enlightenment said BS! We're all the same in that regard. But, the next step was that government was formed by the people, by men, by their consent. NOT GOD. It's easy to read the same. They were religious, yes, but they kept religion an individual freedom, and knew all to well the problem with a religious government.


Doesn't look like it from what I read, or from what Washington spoke! Concerning Jefferson btw: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006 (Thomas Jefferson, Deist or Christian?)

That's a nice opinion peice. But the facts of Jefferson are well known. How about something with just a little less bias?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Sure. It is called the 14th amendment. But yes, the 1st amendment did not get edited. What happened is that the 14th changed the narrow limitation against federal government to a broader limitation against the states. ?

Balderdash. Correct incorporation would have interpreted the Constitution to forbid states from establishing a state government and nothing more. Thank GOD some on the Supreme Court (though they are the minority, but that will change) agree with originalism.

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Balderdash. Correct incorporation would have interpreted the Constitution to forbid states from establishing a state government and nothing more. Thank GOD some on the Supreme Court (though they are the minority, but that will change) agree with originalism.

Would have? Would have? What's the basis for saying "correct." A wish?

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Would have? Would have? What's the basis for saying "correct." A wish?

Excuse me, you will NOT use that tone with me.

I'm an originalist just like my idol, Antonin Scalia. (And my namesake, Clarence Thomas)

My point, as you no doubt did understand but refused to address due to your focus on being a smartass, was that the SCOTUS incorrectly used both the incorportation doctrine and the original meaning of the 1st Amendment when it ruled in a number of establishment clause cases. Those decisions, thank GOD, can be overruled, and decisions true to the actual text of the Constitution, ( and not the wishes of liberal activists at the ACLU, and other groups that believe in the very convenient philosophy of "living constitutionalism") will return once again. The founding fathers would spit on the robes of most of the justices on the current Court.

[Apollo5600]

<CENTER>(Quotes Jefferson)807. BIBLE, Morality in the. -- </CENTER>



There never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four Evangelists. --TITLE: To Samuel Greenhow. EDITION: Washington ed. <NUM rend="vol" n="Washington">vi</NUM>, <NUM rend="page" n="Washington">309.</NUM>


PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1814


<HR width="50%"><CENTER>808. BIBLE, Protestants and the. -- </CENTER>




As to tradition, if we are Protestants we reject all tradition, and rely on the Scripture alone, for that is the essence and common principle of all the Protestant churches. --TITLE: Notes on Religion. EDITION: Ford ed., <NUM rend="vol" n="Ford">ii,</NUM> <NUM rend="page" n="Ford">96. </NUM>


PLACE: [none given] <DATE value="1776?-00-00" certainty="n">1776?



<CENTER>2143. DEITY, Assistance Implored. -- </CENTER>


We commit our injuries to the even-handed justice of that Being, Who doth no wrong, earnestly beseeching Him to illuminate the councils, and prosper the endeavors of those to whom America hath confided her hopes, that through their wise direction we May again see reunited the blessings of liberty, property, and harmony with Great Britain. --TITLE: Address Virginia House of Burgesses to Lord Dunmore. EDITION: Ford ed., <NUM rend="vol" n="Ford">i,</NUM> <NUM rend="page" n="Ford">459.


DATE: June. 1775


<HR width="50%"><CENTER>2144. DEITY, Assistance Implored. -- [continued] . </CENTER>



We devoutly implore assistance of Almighty God to conduct us happily through this great conflict. --



TITLE: Declaration on Taking up Arms.
EDITION: Ford ed., <NUM rend="vol" n="Ford">i,</NUM> <NUM rend="page" n="Ford">476.
DATE: July. 1775




<HR width="50%"><CENTER>2145. DEITY, Beneficence of. -- </CENTER>





It hath pleased the Sovereign Disposer of all human events to give to this [Revolution] appeal an issue favorable to the rights of the States. --TITLE: Proposed Constitution for Virginia. EDITION: Washington ed. <NUM rend="vol" n="Washington">viii</NUM>, <NUM rend="page" n="Washington">441.</NUM>

EDITION: Ford ed., <NUM rend="vol" n="Ford">iii,</NUM> <NUM rend="page" n="Ford">321. </NUM>

PLACE: [none given]
DATE: 1783



<CENTER>2146. DEITY, Deliver of the Distressed. -- </CENTER>



When the measure of their [the Slaves] tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless, a God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or, at length, by His exterminating thunder, manifest His attention to the things of this world, and that they are not left to the guidance of a blind fatality. --TITLE: To M. de Meunier. EDITION: Washington ed. <NUM rend="vol" n="Washington">ix</NUM>, <NUM rend="page" n="Washington">279.</NUM>


EDITION: Ford ed., <NUM rend="vol" n="Ford">iv,</NUM> <NUM rend="page" n="Ford">185. </NUM>
PLACE: Paris
DATE: 1786





[Col 2]






<CENTER>2147. DEITY, Existence of. -- </CENTER>I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God. Now, one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians; the other five-sixths, then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knowledge of the existence of a God! This gives completely a <HI>gain de cause</HI> to the disciples of Ocellus, Timoeus, Spinosa, Diderot and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is, that in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a Being whom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance, and mode, or place of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in all its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power. to maintain the universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view; comets in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and were there no restoring power. all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians, indeed, have believed in the coeternal pre-existence of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect. That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleta. --



TITLE: To John Adams.
EDITION: Washington ed. <NUM rend="vol" n="Washington">vii</NUM>, <NUM rend="page" n="Washington">281.</NUM>
PLACE: Monticello




DATE: 1823http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-foley?specfile=/texts/english/jefferson/foley/public/JefCycl.o2w&act=surround&offset=2737257&tag=2147.+DEITY,+Existence+of.+--+&query=Christian&id=JCE2147



http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/foley/





Yeah, God sure is dead to him! Jefferson does not equal atheist scum. There is more on that website if you bother to search. (The first link takes you just to the last part... since on the other page, it was cut up and not finnished. The other quotes can be found easily on the "Deity" and "Bible" sections)


Concerning the 14th amendment, I see nothing there justifying the liberal interpretation of the 1a nor a justifcation for the Supreme Court or any other Branch of government to read it as such.

From our first President as seen before:
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

It was Congress by joint committee that requested him to do so... How many lawsuits should he of receieved?

That's a nice opinion peice. But the facts of Jefferson are well known. How about something with just a little less bias?

It appears to be correct in all it's peices, expecially inlight of the quotes above. It is impossible for me to find a article repeating the facts therein from the liberal viewpoint, which you no doubt consider "unbiased".

Edit:Whatever the case, he would never of supported the current Interpretation (by you) of the 1a.

Edit: Here is a Link discussing "Were the founding fathers deists and infidels?"
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm

Edit: From the site:
I grant that all of the Founders were far too influenced by Enlightenment Humanism. But then, I think Pat Robertson is way too "moderate." The point is that none of them would support the present definition of "separation of church and state."

[PostDoctoralDoom]

Excuse me, you will NOT use that tone with me.

I'm an originalist just like my idol, Antonin Scalia. (And my namesake, Clarence Thomas)

My point, as you no doubt did understand but refused to address due to your focus on being a smartass, was that the SCOTUS incorrectly used both the incorportation doctrine and the original meaning of the 1st Amendment when it ruled in a number of establishment clause cases. Those decisions, thank GOD, can be overruled, and decisions true to the actual text of the Constitution, ( and not the wishes of liberal activists at the ACLU, and other groups that believe in the very convenient philosophy of "living constitutionalism") will return once again. The founding fathers would spit on the robes of most of the justices on the current Court.

I'm sorry. Let me try again. Why is it incorrect?

[PostDoctoralDoom]

<CENTER>(Quotes Jefferson)807. BIBLE, Morality in the. -- </CENTER>

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-foley?specfile=/texts/english/jefferson/foley/public/JefCycl.o2w&act=surround&offset=2737257&tag=2147.+DEITY,+Existence+of.+--+&query=Christian&id=JCE2147





http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/foley/






Yeah, God sure is dead to him! Jefferson does not equal atheist scum. There is more on that website if you bother to search. (The first link takes you just to the last part... since on the other page, it was cut up and not finnished. The other quotes can be found easily on the "Deity" and "Bible" sections)



Concerning the 14th amendment, I see nothing there justifying the liberal interpretation of the 1a nor a justifcation for the Supreme Court or any other Branch of government to read it as such.

From our first President as seen before:
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

It was Congress by joint committee that requested him to do so... How many lawsuits should he of receieved?



It appears to be correct in all it's peices, expecially inlight of the quotes above. It is impossible for me to find a article repeating the facts therein from the liberal viewpoint, which you no doubt consider "unbiased".

Edit:Whatever the case, he would never of supported the current Interpretation (by you) of the 1a.

Edit: Here is a Link discussing "Were the founding fathers deists and infidels?"
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm

Edit: From the site:
I grant that all of the Founders were far too influenced by Enlightenment Humanism. But then, I think Pat Robertson is way too "moderate." The point is that none of them would support the present definition of "separation of church and state."

Great links. I will respond tomorrow. There is so much there.