Legislating Morality - by Mike S. Adams

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Legislating morality::By Mike S. Adams (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/12/legislating_morality)

Dear Students:
First of all, I would like to thank each of you for signing up for my class this semester at UNC-Wilmington. Part of my job as your professor is to dispel certain myths you learn in your other classes, especially sociology. If you decide to question these myths in Sociology 101, your professor is likely to assign you to sensitivity training sessions.

Because our university (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/12/legislating_morality#) faculty is so overwhelmingly liberal, many of these myths constitute arrogant dismissals of conservative ideas – ideas that your professors would take more seriously if they had a little more experience interacting with conservatives. Some of your professors have never met a conservative and could only spot one from a distance based largely on the conservative’s physical appearance and grooming habits.

Needless to say, I can’t take on all of the myths you will encounter every semester at UNC-Wilmington. In fact, each semester I design a project that focuses on just one of those myths. This semester I will focus on the myth that society “can’t legislate morality.”

But before I deliver my first lecture on the topic, I have decided to give you a little homework assignment. Please take the time to a) read all of the following questions, and b) write a short paragraph in response to each. I’ll collect your answers before the next lecture on Monday:

Make sure to read the questions!

[DesertFox]

Okay.

[Eagle1]

great articel, take that smarmy relativist libs

[Lazarus]

Mike Adams is one of the great Conservative minds of our time...

[pinqy]

He doesn't know his Jefferson history very well. Saving the Danbury Baptist letter for later, let's look at Mr. Adams' other comments:
Is it true that Thomas Jefferson set up the University of Virginia – using state funds – with rules including a ban on swearing and an expectation that students would “attend religious services”? No, it's not true.
TO DOCTOR COOPER, November 2, 1822 (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16784/16784-h/16784-h.htm#2H_4_0167)
In our University you know there is no professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the University, so near as that the students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use our own library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.
Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Spicer Brockenbrough 21 April 1825 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef10Gr.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=65&division=div1)
In answer to your letter proposing to permit the lecturing room of the Pavilion No. 1. to be used regularly for prayers and preachings on Sundays, I have to observe that some 3. or 4. years ago, an application was made to permit a sermon to be preached in one of the pavilions on a particular occasion, not now recollected, it brought the subject into consideration with the Visitors, and altho' they entered into no formal and written resolution on the occasion, the concurrent sentiment was that the buildings of the University belong to the state that they were erected for the purposes of an University, and that the Visitors, to whose care they are committed for those purposes have no right to permit their application to any other....
In the Rockfish report it was stated as probable that a building larger than the Pavilions might be called for in time, in which might be rooms for a library, for public examinations, and for religious worship under such impartial regulations as the Visitors should prescribe, the legislature neither sanctioned nor rejected this proposition; and afterwards, in the Report of Oct 1822. the board suggested, as a substitute, that the different religious sects should be invited to establish their separate theological schools in the vicinity of the University, in which the Students might attend religious worship, each in the form of his respective sect, and thus avoid all jealousy of attempts on his religious tenets. among the enactments of the board is one looking to this object, and superseding the first idea of permitting a room in the Rotunda to be used for religious worship, and of undertaking to frame a set of regulations of equality and impartiality among the multiplied sects. I state these things as manifesting the caution which the board of Visitors thinks it a duty to observe on this delicate and jealous subject. your proposition therefore leading to an application of the University buildings to other than University purposes, and to a partial regulation in favor of two particular sects, would be a deviation from the course which they think it their duty to observe. nor indeed is it immediately percieved what effect the repeated and habitual assemblages of a great number of strangers at the University might have on it's order and tranquility.
So, he didn't allow a dept of Divinity, even though every other university had one, he didn't build a chapel, and approached with extreme caution the very idea of allowing religious services on campus. He never called for student prayer, though the Board of Visitors may have after Jefferson left/died.

Given that Thomas Jefferson did not attend the constitutional convention, why is it that people often quote him when insisting that the “separation of church and state” is a “constitutional requirement”? Is it possible that many of these self-described liberals are unable to differentiate between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? No, it's much more likely that others are more familiar with Jefferson's works. As he himself wrote (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16784/16784-h/16784-h.htm#2H_4_0192)The attack on the establishment of a dominant religion, was first made by myself. It could be carried at first only by a suspension of salaries for one year, by battling it again at the next session for another year, and so from year to year, until the public mind was ripened for the bill for establishing religious freedom, which I had prepared for the revised code also. This was at length established permanently, and by the efforts chiefly of Mr. Madison, being myself in Europe at the time that work was brought forward. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom and this was the basis of the First Ammendment.

In 1796, an act was passed by Congress under President Washington regulating the land given to the Society of United Brethren for “propagating the gospel among the heathen.” The act was later extended by President Jefferson. Do you suppose that conflicts with his supposed insistence upon a “wall of separation between church and state”?
Interesting misuse of quotation marks. The name of the corporation was "The Society of United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." Yet the use of quotation marks implies that propogation was the reason for the grant, rather than the name of the corporation. Still looking for the specifics of the Society's activities, but the land grant was part of a settlement with Indian tribes and the purpose of the grant was definitely not to spread religion.

more later...Mr. Adams' revisionism is interesting.

[Kathy30]

Liberals are the first to legislate morality, only their particular kind of morality.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

He doesn't know his Jefferson history very well. Saving the Danbury Baptist letter for later, let's look at Mr. Adams' other comments: No, it's not true.


Please, pingy, please, I implore you write Professor Adams with your critique -- he accepts, and reads his own e-mails. I am so curious to see his response to you.

adams_mike@hotmail.com (adams_mike@hotmail.com)

Or if that's too "personal" for you, you can respond at Townhall.com to his article.

Townhall.com::Legislating morality::By Mike S. Adams (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/12/legislating_morality)

[Eagle1]

Liberals are the first to legislate morality, only their particular kind of morality.

amorality at best, immorality at worst

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Townhall.com::Legislating morality, Part II::By Mike S. Adams (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=legislating_morality,_part_ii&ns=MikeSAdams&dt=10/13/2006&page=full&comments=true)

Good morning class! Before I get to today’s lecture, I am going to pass out the next set of questions designed to help you critically evaluate the assertion that “you can’t legislate morality.” Please answer all of the following questions by next week:

James Madison once said that “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment?

Take a few minutes to re-read the First Amendment. Did Madison include the word “separation” in that Amendment? How about the word “church”? How about the word “state”?

In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. In Edwards, the Court established one religion (Secular Humanism) above all others. If Jefferson were alive today - and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – how do you think he would have voted in those two cases?

If the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” are we free to ignore original intent altogether?

Is a stop sign of any use if I am free to interpret it as a “go” sign?

[pinqy]

James Madison once said that “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” Was this the same James Madison who wrote the First Amendment? No, it wasn't. That quotation has not been found in any of Madison's writings.

In the Torcaso case, the Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. No, it didn't. The reference to Secular Humanism as a religion is from a footnote by Justice Black. Footnotes are not declarations of the court. The case cited in the footnote, Washington Ethical Society v District of Columbia (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington_Ethical_Society_v._District_of_Columbia ) was a case involving tax exempt status for the Washington Ethical Society which, though it claimed no belief in any deity, hold regular Sunday services and Sunday School classes for childrenf it has 'Leaders' who preach and minister to the members, conducting services for naming, marrying and burying members. The 'Leaders' testified in terms of 'spiritual values' and 'spiritual guidance' for members; one pamphlet speaks of the people's 'great need for a sense of direction in their lives,' and 'a faith attuned to our times,' and describes the group as 'conceived by its founder as itself a deeply religious Movement * * * to (which) it has remained faithful. * * * To our believers, Ethical Culture is a way of life-- an enriching, vital and meaningful force contributing to the moral and spiritual advancement of our times.' Another of its early leaders declared: 'For it is the inward peace which we must gain: so to live that we feel in touch with the divine purpose which permeates the world.' 1 Dr. Muzzey, one of its early spokesmen, wrote: 'Everybody except the avowed atheists (and they are comparatively few) believes in some kind of God.' 2
The services of the organization held at regular hours each Sunday have the forms of worship service with Bible readings, sermons, singing and meditation familiar in services of many formal or traditional church organizations. Its program bears the words 'Where Men Meet to Seek the Highest is Holy Ground.' Hardly "Secular Humanism." In any case, "Secular Humanism" is a specific doctrine and system of belief. I am not aware of it being taught in any schools.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Have you e-mailed Professor Adams yet, pingy?

[pinqy]

No, not yet...I was waiting for today's installment to see what he'd add. When I have some free time this afternoon, I will. They're actually making me work today.

[Kathy30]

Secular Humanisim isn't only a religion, it is fast becoming the STATE religion which all must practice at least in public.

[pinqy]

Secular Humanisim isn't only a religion, it is fast becoming the STATE religion which all must practice at least in public.
Neutrality towards religion, teaching from a secular viewpoint, are not Secular Humanism. I've never heard of teachers teaching out of the Humanist Manifesto or any other Secular Humanist works. It seems to me that there's an inaccurate tendancy to label any ideas that are not strictly religious as "Secular Humanism." But I could be mistaken. Please, if you have any evidence that the Humanist Manifesto or other specifically Humanist works, share...I've never seen them.

[DoctorDoom]

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith... these teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach... The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new, the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved."
-- John Dunphy, Humanist Magazine, Jan/Feb, 1985

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"
-- Charles Francis Potter, a signer of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto, in "Humanism: A New Religion", 1930

"(T)eachers and school administrators (should) come to see themselves as social engineers. They must equip themselves as 'change agents'."
-- Kenneth Benne, American Education Fellowship president, in "Progressive Education", May, 1949

"(E)very child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity... It's up to you teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international children of the future."
-- Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry, Medicine and Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, in a 1972 address to the Association for Childhood Education International in Denver

"Human beings can be influenced to examine critically their religious beliefs only by indirection, (by which) I mean the development of a critical attitude in all our educational institutions that will aim to make students less credulous to claims that transcend their reflective experience."
-- Sidney Hook, signer of 1973 Humanist Manifesto, in the Jan/Feb 1977 edition of "The Humanist"

"You are a target of the Far Right... (if) you ask students to examine their values, teach sex education, ever indicate it may be OK to lie, teach about values different from those of the students' parents, teach that 'anything goes' or 'if you feel it's OK, do it,' train your students to be 'global citizens,' teach humanism, etc."
-- "Combatting the New Right", a 1977 training program developed by the NEA Western States Regional Staff

"(S)ociety has the ultimate responsibility for the well-being and development of all children... The time has come to re-examine such fundamental issues as the extent to which a child is entitled to seek medical and psychiatric assistance, birth control information and even abortion, without parental consent or over parental opposition." The report recommends, "Sex education - including family planning, birth control, contraception, abortion, venereal disease, homosexuality and lesbianism and so-called unnatural acts."
-- The 1970 White House Conference on Children and Youth

"In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher...can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation...At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession."
-- The Teacher and World Government, by Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the NEA Journal (National Education Association), 1946

“As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”
-- William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, UNESCO meeting in 1946

Do not be deceived that anything has changed for the better since they made clear that education is the forum for indoctrinating children in humanism and leftism.

[pinqy]

Ok, I posted briefer versions (without links) in the comments for both articles. I just don't have an email address I can use from this computer that I'd use for direct correspondence.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Ok, I posted briefer versions (without links) in the comments for both articles. I just don't have an email address I can use from this computer that I'd use for direct correspondence.

No problem, pingy, I sent him an e-mail with links to FC and copied your posts for him to respond to. Hopefully, he will.

[pinqy]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't care if people disagree with me, I just loathe it when the arguments are dishonest (even when the arguer thinks they are, and I absolutely believe that Mr. Adams errors were ignorance, not malice).

[Federal Farmer]

Jefferson wrote the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom and this was the basis of the First Ammendment.
No, the "basis" would be the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason.

[pinqy]

No problem, pingy, I sent him an e-mail with links to FC and copied your posts for him to respond to. Hopefully, he will.
No reply yet?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No reply yet?

Not to me -- have you received one?

[pinqy]

Not that I've seen.