Slashdot Mirror

You mean the fantasy of "The Great Switch" which was exactly 1 person named Strom Thurmond? The rest remained in the Democratic party, including Bird. here or here, but numerous other sites debunk that fairy tale. I'm pretty sure Snopes had something on it too, but Snopes didn't come up first in my search.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98

"Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?"

An interesting question, both because he can be all things, and because it is irrelevant to our discussion.

"Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians."

Benjamin Franklin, a self-proclaimed deist, recommended that the Constitutional Convention, then meeting in relative secrecy, appoint a chaplain. Thereafter, the convention opened each session in prayer, after a brief interruption to reorganize in the wake of that contentious meeting where Franklin appealsed for a chaplain and prayers.

Franklin's best statement about his beliefs might be the one a few weeks before his death. Perhaps most telling is his comment:"and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble". This does present a problem, as to be considered a Christian today would require, generally, that you accept Christ as God's only son. I, for one, would not be inclined to challenge Mr. Franklin's beliefs soley on that basis. But in the letter referenced above, Franklin seemed to express a very common belief among churches and believers at the time. Strictly, no, Franklin was not a Chrtistian. His beliefs, however, were not atheist. You may win this argument, but Franklin's words seem to bring him closer to Christianty than not.

The Contintental Congress first opened in prayer on September 7, 1774. Not very inclusive, granted, but not atheist.

"Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI seems to include the Constitution, laws, and treaties. Are you claiming that the Treaty of Tripoli
supercedes the Constitution? Or that it amplifies it? I would propose that the treaty of Tripoli, along with all others is subject to constitutional checks, as are all other laws and agreements of the nation. More to the point, however, I wrote:

"From there, you can easily teach that while we may have been founded as a Christian nation, we are not exclusively Christian now, nor even then"

I did not claim that American WAS founded as a Christian nation, and while I believe we wre intended to be founded as one, I also believe that as a Christian nation that we need not, and indeed should not, nor were we intended to oppress others nor conduct our affairs as if there is only the one true God and all others should yield to him. Rather, it is Christian to care for others, show compassion to all no matter their beliefs or even their attitude and behavior towards you, and recognize that not all will accept Christ, and loving them despite that. Now, being an Islamic nation does not seem to permit a very charitable attitude to non-Muslims. I'm not sure there is a good example of Buddhism as government to rely on, though the Dalai Lama seems to be a peaceful and genuine leader, and Tibet seems to be as peaceful as they can be given that they are under direct persecution, invasion, and destruction by China.

If I were teaching US History as it was taught to me in 1971, I would be exploring the beliefs of the founding fathers, and recognizing the diversity of those beliefs. I would also be teaching how these and other beliefs have impacted our nation,

Then maybe we shouldn't be a democracy anymore.

Me? I would have thought the Voice of All Reason had at least a high school quality civics education. I stand corrected.

Settle down and read this:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detai l.php?ResourceID=4

Who thinks USA has anything to do with democracy?
Wow- not to be an ass- but the US isn't a Democracy. It is a representative republic.
A true Democracy in the US would be sort of scary- Imagine mob rule. Think about it.
A well Written article on Democracy v. Republic
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detai l.php?ResourceID=4
Republic v. Democracy
by David Barton
We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams
A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment
We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution
[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams
A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration
In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster
Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text Click link for more

Well, if we're also going to take the first amendment literally, then you also have to consider the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". We seem to have forgotten that second part in this modern age.

So there, plain as day, the government shall pass no law preventing me from praying to whatever I want, wherever I want. That means I should be able to pray in schools, pray in libraries, have my religious floats in Christmas parades, etc etc. Instead, in 200 years we've managed to turn the amendment around to "freedom from religion", where noone is allowed to practice their religions on public property because someone might be offended... not in the pledge, not on our money, not in our courts, despite the fact that the founding fathers were quite religious (not by-the-book Catholics, but definitely not secular nor atheist), and wove that into the framework of our governmental bodies.

The United States of America was never a Democracy and the founders made that very clear. It is a Constitution-based federal republic which means that we are ruled by laws created by elected officials. In a democracy every issue is decided by popular vote. Great article here

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.

... you should read jefferson's treatise on this issue (the letter to the danbury baptists [loc.gov]) ...

Whether one likes it or not, the words "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the Constitution did not and do not mean that the Federal Government could not support the Christian religion. Examination of the Founders' deeds when they held office is clearly inconsistent with today's prevailing opinion of the First Amendment. They clearly supported Christianity.

The intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing an official denomination of Christianity in the United States so as not to repeat the mistakes of the old world where the King decided the religion. As you read the original documents, try to determine what the original problem was that was trying to be solved. A cursory examination of the Founders' writings plus commentaries of the time clearly reveal that the problem being solved was not public religious expression. Either that, or one must conclude that the writers of the First Amendment did not understand it themselves -- an absurd proposition.

One of the original proposals for the amendment, by George Mason, who was also a member of the Constitutional Convention and is known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights" was:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free excercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Here are some quotes from the Annals of Congress, June 8, 1798 during the drafting of the First Amendment:

... He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether ...

This referred to Peter Sylvester of New York. He was concerned that if not worded carefully, people may believe the intent to abolish religion.

[Elbridge] Gerry said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." ...

Mr. [James] Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."

The more one reads of the original documents, the clearer it becomes. Jefferson's letter is very often misunderstood and misrepresented. For a quick discussion of this, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detai l.php?ResourceID=9

If you disagree with any of these assertions or wish to know more about them, I would do as the previous poster suggested -- read original documents for yourself. This reading should include more than just Jefferson's letter, though. His writings are worthy of respect, but no more so than the other founders. Do not forget that Thomas Jefferson was not even present when the Constition was created (he was in France), so he can hardly be the only authority on the First Amendment.

Incidentally, those who promote Jefferson's letter rarely point out that he also wrote:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states.

(Note that the "government of the United States" refers to the federal government, often known as the "General Government" in that time.)

States were not to be prohibited from establishing their own denominations, etc. The current rage over religious expression in any state institution is without merit. The Federal Government cannot constitutionally strike down laws that are religious in nature just because the Federal government cannot establish an official Church of the United States.

I will probably not see any replies, but before replying, please check your facts. Myths such as the founders were all deists, agnostics, atheists, etc. have no basis. Read the writings of all of the Founding Fathers. Look into intellectually honest works such as the book Original Intent by David Barton. One can order his book, and read articles by him at his website: www.wallbuilders.com. Check out his articles at http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/issue s.php

Whether one likes it or not, the Founding Fathers were Christian and believed the Christian religion was more than just acceptable in the forum of government, it was essential. If we do not like that, there is a proper remedy: further amending of the Constitution. Historical revisionism is simply a polite term for deception and lying. If you have been taught otherwise, read the letters of the Founding Fathers and the congressional debates yourselves.

Slashdot could do with more facts and less opinions.

... you should read jefferson's treatise on this issue (the letter to the danbury baptists [loc.gov]) ...

Whether one likes it or not, the words "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the Constitution did not and do not mean that the Federal Government could not support the Christian religion. Examination of the Founders' deeds when they held office is clearly inconsistent with today's prevailing opinion of the First Amendment. They clearly supported Christianity.

The intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing an official denomination of Christianity in the United States so as not to repeat the mistakes of the old world where the King decided the religion. As you read the original documents, try to determine what the original problem was that was trying to be solved. A cursory examination of the Founders' writings plus commentaries of the time clearly reveal that the problem being solved was not public religious expression. Either that, or one must conclude that the writers of the First Amendment did not understand it themselves -- an absurd proposition.

One of the original proposals for the amendment, by George Mason, who was also a member of the Constitutional Convention and is known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights" was:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free excercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Here are some quotes from the Annals of Congress, June 8, 1798 during the drafting of the First Amendment:

... He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether ...

This referred to Peter Sylvester of New York. He was concerned that if not worded carefully, people may believe the intent to abolish religion.

[Elbridge] Gerry said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." ...

Mr. [James] Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."

The more one reads of the original documents, the clearer it becomes. Jefferson's letter is very often misunderstood and misrepresented. For a quick discussion of this, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detai l.php?ResourceID=9

If you disagree with any of these assertions or wish to know more about them, I would do as the previous poster suggested -- read original documents for yourself. This reading should include more than just Jefferson's letter, though. His writings are worthy of respect, but no more so than the other founders. Do not forget that Thomas Jefferson was not even present when the Constition was created (he was in France), so he can hardly be the only authority on the First Amendment.

Incidentally, those who promote Jefferson's letter rarely point out that he also wrote:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states.

(Note that the "government of the United States" refers to the federal government, often known as the "General Government" in that time.)

States were not to be prohibited from establishing their own denominations, etc. The current rage over religious expression in any state institution is without merit. The Federal Government cannot constitutionally strike down laws that are religious in nature just because the Federal government cannot establish an official Church of the United States.

I will probably not see any replies, but before replying, please check your facts. Myths such as the founders were all deists, agnostics, atheists, etc. have no basis. Read the writings of all of the Founding Fathers. Look into intellectually honest works such as the book Original Intent by David Barton. One can order his book, and read articles by him at his website: www.wallbuilders.com. Check out his articles at http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/issue s.php

Whether one likes it or not, the Founding Fathers were Christian and believed the Christian religion was more than just acceptable in the forum of government, it was essential. If we do not like that, there is a proper remedy: further amending of the Constitution. Historical revisionism is simply a polite term for deception and lying. If you have been taught otherwise, read the letters of the Founding Fathers and the congressional debates yourselves.

Slashdot could do with more facts and less opinions.

... you should read jefferson's treatise on this issue (the letter to the danbury baptists [loc.gov]) ...

Whether one likes it or not, the words "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the Constitution did not and do not mean that the Federal Government could not support the Christian religion. Examination of the Founders' deeds when they held office is clearly inconsistent with today's prevailing opinion of the First Amendment. They clearly supported Christianity.

The intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing an official denomination of Christianity in the United States so as not to repeat the mistakes of the old world where the King decided the religion. As you read the original documents, try to determine what the original problem was that was trying to be solved. A cursory examination of the Founders' writings plus commentaries of the time clearly reveal that the problem being solved was not public religious expression. Either that, or one must conclude that the writers of the First Amendment did not understand it themselves -- an absurd proposition.

One of the original proposals for the amendment, by George Mason, who was also a member of the Constitutional Convention and is known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights" was:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free excercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Here are some quotes from the Annals of Congress, June 8, 1798 during the drafting of the First Amendment:

... He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether ...

This referred to Peter Sylvester of New York. He was concerned that if not worded carefully, people may believe the intent to abolish religion.

[Elbridge] Gerry said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." ...

Mr. [James] Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."

The more one reads of the original documents, the clearer it becomes. Jefferson's letter is very often misunderstood and misrepresented. For a quick discussion of this, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detai l.php?ResourceID=9

If you disagree with any of these assertions or wish to know more about them, I would do as the previous poster suggested -- read original documents for yourself. This reading should include more than just Jefferson's letter, though. His writings are worthy of respect, but no more so than the other founders. Do not forget that Thomas Jefferson was not even present when the Constition was created (he was in France), so he can hardly be the only authority on the First Amendment.

Incidentally, those who promote Jefferson's letter rarely point out that he also wrote:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states.

(Note that the "government of the United States" refers to the federal government, often known as the "General Government" in that time.)

States were not to be prohibited from establishing their own denominations, etc. The current rage over religious expression in any state institution is without merit. The Federal Government cannot constitutionally strike down laws that are religious in nature just because the Federal government cannot establish an official Church of the United States.

I will probably not see any replies, but before replying, please check your facts. Myths such as the founders were all deists, agnostics, atheists, etc. have no basis. Read the writings of all of the Founding Fathers. Look into intellectually honest works such as the book Original Intent by David Barton. One can order his book, and read articles by him at his website: www.wallbuilders.com. Check out his articles at http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/issue s.php

Whether one likes it or not, the Founding Fathers were Christian and believed the Christian religion was more than just acceptable in the forum of government, it was essential. If we do not like that, there is a proper remedy: further amending of the Constitution. Historical revisionism is simply a polite term for deception and lying. If you have been taught otherwise, read the letters of the Founding Fathers and the congressional debates yourselves.

Slashdot could do with more facts and less opinions.