The Decalogue And The Demagogue

Americans United ^ | Oct 2003 | Americans United

[hosepipe]

[ We all got a glimpse of what a Religious Right-dominated America would look like in Montgomery recently. Our challenge is to make sure it never comes to pass. ]

Since the religious right is about only the thing on the right these days... and since the entire republican party is mostly left of center.... I'll have go with 'em... not haveing a relgious bone in my body... anything left of center has treason at its heart.. being a radical as I am... a radical change from the status quo. is the only solution to what ails "us".

[Ahban]

That is right, TigersEys nailed it in #49. Your rights are more secure under the guardianship of Christains who hold that you are created in God's image and endowed by Him with certain rights than they are under the management of athiests who want to "protect" you from government officials who desire to acknowledge that God as part of their duty.

Ironically, athiests are safer ruled by such theists than they are under other athiests.

[Ahban]

The 14th does NOT apply the first to all levels of government. The 14th has been stretched bit by bit by over-reaching judges. Here is the history of its expansion.....

at the time America understood that the 14th did not apply the entire bill of rights to the states, and that view was only constructed later, in a series of steps, by the courts. This is from Grolier's online encyclopedia...

---

The amendment was first construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and then in Hurato v. California (1884) to deny that all personal rights and liberties extended by the Bill of Rights were protected from impairment by a state. In cases such as these the basis was laid for Government Regulation. In LoOchner v. New York (1905), however, and in other decisions through the 1930s, the Court interpreted the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to invalidate state legislation regulating working conditions, hours, and minimum wage laws. Many of the notable dissenting opinions of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, which later became law, can be found in decisions of this era relating to issues arising under the 14th Amendment.

It was not until 1925 in Gitlow v. New York that the Court used the due process clause of this amendment to incorporate a provision of the Bill of Rights by extending the FIRST AMENDMENT protection of freedom of speech to persons against abridgment by state action. By 1937 (Palko v. Connecticut), all of the 1st Amendment protections were binding on the states under the theory that those provisions of the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" were included in the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment. The Court has gradually included all amendments of the Bill of Rights except the SECOND, THIRD, SEVENTH, TENTH, and the requirement of grand jury indictment in the FIFTH Amendment in its "selective incorporation doctrine," protecting individual rights from state encroachment. The due process clause has also been used to acknowledge the right to privacy (Roe v. Wade, 1971).

---

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...Washington's religious views were a bit vague...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you guys crack me up.

Hey, Eric: ever considered that the saddest thing about being an atheist, is that you have to lie like a liberal? That is, deny the evidence of your own eyes? Fingers crossed that dichotomy proves jarring enough to wake you from your silliness, one day. Cheers, By

[TigersEye]

I responded to an incorrect statement.

Not that you can show me apparently.

And it looks like it's about to get personal. I'm not in the mood for a flame war.

Pure imagination on your part. A good excuse for not offering a response with substance. You're excused.

[CGVet58]

Kerberos...

perhaps, when you state the following to your fellow leftward leaning friends:

"...Moore told a Promise Keepers rally in Atlanta recently that church-state separation is “a fable.” That’s a strong clue revealing what this crusade was really all about: furthering Religious Right attacks on that important constitutional principle..."

you might do well to clarify that such a statement is found in a Constitution, just not the United States Constitution.

It is found, however, in the Soviet Constitution of 1918... article 11 or 13, I believe, iirc.

You're just another leftie is all...

CGVet58

[TigersEye]

The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First to all levels of government, forbidding Establishment.

One would think that all of the Bill of Rights would apply to all States with or without the Fourteenth Amendment. If they didn't just what State would they prevail in? However, since 'Establishment' did not occur in the Moore case it is irrelevant unless you include the court that fired him for opening with a prayer. Who did they pray to?

That's pretty much considered a given by the courts these days.

Gee whiz that carries a lot of weight. It is pretty much considered, by the courts these days, that sucking a babies brains out while it is being delivered doesn't violate its right to life. The courts these days consider all types of abortion to be a private matter. The courts these days pretty much consider the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right ... of the State.

... there are also sculptures of Hammurabi and Mohammed in the Supreme Court...the theme is the history of written law, not religion.

There are many exceptions to that all around the country. Judge Moore's monument has a number of Founding Father's quotes on it so its theme is historical not religious ... by your criteria. That its theme might be solely religious is inconsequential. Its display does not constitute the making of any civil law nor does its display compel anyone to do or think anything they don't wish to do or think. There is no force of law behind it therefore nothing, religious or secular, has been established.

[TigersEye]

... anything left of center has treason at its heart.. being a radical as I am... a radical change from the status quo. is the only solution to what ails "us".

You might appreciate this screed on treason that I wrote a little while ago.

[Kerberos]

Your comments and insight are truly inspiring.

[TigersEye]

... TigersEys nailed it in #49. Your rights are more secure under the guardianship of Christains who hold that you are created in God's image and endowed by Him with certain rights ...

I REALLY hate to disagree with you, Ahban, but I must. It is not Christians I trust with the guardianship of my rights but God. A strange concept for a Buddhist to hold? So be it. With all due respect, the majority of citizens in this country, to this day, are Christians and we find ourselves where we are today, perhaps in spite of them, in big trouble.

The essence of my point was that our rights are said to issue from a source above and beyond man's will, a source named as "our Creator", and this is said in the black and white of our most primal document the DoI. It is that concept being bound in a civil code, which Judge Moore refers to as "organic law", that sets our civil law apart from all others. The existence of God is not an issue here as His existence is not provable to the non-believer and needs no proving for the believer. Individual belief is not an issue either for the believer should have no problem trusting that God is the author of rights. What problem is there for the non-believer? If he truly believes that God doesn't exist then those who do can't make it so by saying it is so. The non-believer's choice is this; accept that rights are inherent to life and that codifying them in civil law by naming "our Creator" as their source is the only rational way to secure them from men or accept men as rulers.

That is not to argue the point that Christianity wasn't the religion of almost all of our Founding Fathers. It was and those who have reverence for the truth will admit it. It is not to argue that the concepts of freedom and justice our Constitution was framed around weren't Christian concepts. They were. (It also doesn't ignore that other religions embody many of those concepts as well. But that is historically irrelevant since our Founders weren't of other religions.)

IMNHO it is vitally important for all Americans of all faiths and non-faiths to understand and embrace this. The alternative is to accept privileges granted by men because men can't grant rights and if we wipe the concept of a higher authority from our founding documents the only authority left in civil law is man's.

Been tried. Kills millions. Enslaves millions more.

It is truly amazing to hear of all the things Judge Moore's monument is capable of doing. Without a legislature convened or a word written a law is created. Without a word of law on the books to enforce and no one enforcing this unwritten law people are compelled to ... do something ... I'm not sure what. That's entirely in the realm of superstition. I thought these secular humanists were above all that. Where is the rational logic? Where is the clarity of thought? Where are the direct responses to even a few questions posed to them? They don't believe in the sanctity of life yet a few words from a Judge's mouth or a large piece of granite constitute a mojo so powerful it makes them tremble.

[hosepipe]

[ You might appreciate this screed on treason that I wrote a little while ago. ]

Looked into the eye of the tiger.. Read it and growled..

However unfortunately thats all that will happen Growling.. Any mass moves by americans united agaisnt the almost routine daily acts of treason will be huffed at by a big part of the republican party backed up by virtually ALL DEMOCRATS.. evidenced by the absolute non reference of Ann Coulters book Treason in any serious confrontational dialogs. Although totally backed up by fact..not to mention total inaction on the psuedo-secret democrat intelligence commitee memo.. Americans especially white americans have almost wholly become cowards in every genre except talk radio which is just a bitchfest. So your screed is in my opinion correct generally but 20 years too late.. American republicans have become domesticated and penned by the democrats.. evidence: check out current republican voteing records.. they were bell'ed like a cat after Newt Ginrich was caged and put on display as a rabid extremeist in the Georgia Zoo.. Pity about ol' Newt, him getting de-balled like that.. he growled real good... before the operation.

[TigersEye]

I'm afraid you are quite likely right.

[Protagoras]

You're excused.

Ok, war time goofy. Your call.

Not that you can show me apparently.

What is apparent to you? Anything? A fairly dim bulb even for this type of thread.

You said the government was preventing someone from practicing religion. That is incorrect despite your imbecilic contention that a government group is preventing another government employee from practicing religion by keeping him from using the public money and building to push his own brand of religion. A right being violated which does not exist except in the minds of demented theocrats. It's so upside down it would fit perfectly in your bizzaro world.

Now, goofy, you are dismissed.

[Ophiucus]

the Treaty of Tripoli, which disavowed any connection between the US government and Christianity.

What a wonderfully obscure reach for a point. I had to do some digging in history and I found a few interesting things.

Evidently this point of the treaty refuting the basis of the US government on Christianity is an old one. Even Washington objected to its use by atheists, saying it was "a most flagrant misquotation for evil purposes."

The treaty was prepared in Arabic and the translation was made by the US Consul, Joel Barlow, a proponent of secularism. The passage in full is:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

Seemingly a reasonable item to assure a Muslim nation in making peace with a Christian enemy. However, this Article XI does not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty (the English and Arabic translations appeared side by side in the treaty). Of all the other translations made, Barlow's Article XI does not exist. The most authoritative, oddly enough, is a 1930 annotated version by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, from Holland. How Barlow's addition came to be is a mystery - even more a mystery is how the wrong treaty got ratified.

But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.

Ultimately, an out of context article in one version of a treaty - a treaty, not an Ammendment, not an excerpt of a Founding Father during the debate on the Constitution. Treaties are only legal documents to govern affairs between two nations.

[TigersEye]

All you have is name calling?

Judge Moore is told he can't acknowledge God if he wants to keep his job. Ever hear of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment? Doubt it, you seem to be the ignoramus illiterati variety of bonehead.

Now you are truly excused. Buzz off dingbat! ; )

[TigersEye]

I guess you were right about that flame war coming. Not too hard to prophechy since you planned to start it eh genius?

[TigersEye]

...keeping him from using the public money...

By now it's been stated a hundred times that the monument was funded privately. Sheesh!

[TigersEye]

What is apparent to you?

That you can't or won't confront the issue directly. Obviously. I'm betting that in your case it's 'can't.'

[E Rocc]

But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.

The Treaty was ratified by a Senate which contained a number of Founders and Framers, was negotiated by the administrations of Washington and Adams, and was proclaimed by Adams. Combined with the fact that God, Jesus, and the Bible are not mentioned in the Constitution (except for the date) and the contemporary comments of Jefferson and Madison regarding Separation, it is clear that the Constitutional goverment of this nation was completely secular.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

...Washington's religious views were a bit vague...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you guys crack me up.

Hey, Eric: ever considered that the saddest thing about being an atheist, is that you have to lie like a liberal?

I guess the happiest thing about being ultra-dogmatic is you never have to support your arguments.....LOL.

"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'"

(Annals of the American Pulpit, Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D.D, Vol. v, p. 394).

The same Dr. Abercrombie told the Reverend Bird Wilson, a noted religious historian of the 19th century, "Sir, Washington was a Deist".

There's no question that Washington believed in God. However, his public words were those not of fundamentalist Christian, but of a Deist. Personally I suspect he wavered between lukewarm Christianity and a devout form of Deism, but one cannot, with historical accuracy, claim that he was a conventional Christian believer.

-Eric