| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2006 06:38:16 AM |
| Object: |
A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda |
A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/13/legislating_morality,_part_ii
[just an example -- excerpt ]
Legislating morality, Part II
By Mike S. Adams
Friday, October 13, 2006
Send an email to Mike S. Adams
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?
Would it be fair to say that the religion of Secular Humanism has the
public school lectern as its pulpit?
Would it be fair to say that public schoolteachers are the missionaries of
the religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that our children are the potential converts of the
religion of Secular Humanism?
Would it be fair to say that the missionary budget of the religion of
Secular Humanism is the U.S. tax code?
Why do we pay only ten percent of our income to our churches, but over a
fourth of our income to a government that advances Secular Humanism over
all other religions?
Many people believe that Christianity is a bad religion responsible for
many atrocities over the last few centuries. Why was the 20th Century the
bloodiest in world history?
What part did atheism play in the increased bloodshed during the last
century?
What part did communism play in the increased bloodshed during the last
century?
In the Casey decision (1992), the Supreme Court stated that “…At the heart
of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of
meaning, and of the mystery of human life.” Is the Court implying that
morality is individually chosen, rather than objective, while
simultaneously defending its right to deprive an entire nation of voting on
the issue of abortion?
Is the right to vote an individual choice?
Later in Casey, the Court said, “(The Mother’s) suffering is too intimate
and personal for the state to insist … upon its own version of the woman’s
role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history
and culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on
her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.”
How would Madison have responded to such a statement?
Imagine a case involving a deadbeat father, in which the Court writes the
following: “(The Father’s) suffering is too intimate and personal for the
state to insist … upon its own version of the man’s role, however dominant
that vision has been in the course of our history and culture. The destiny
of the man must be shaped to a large extent on his own conception of his
spiritual imperatives and his place in society.” Would Justice Ginsberg
author such an opinion?
Given that homosexuals live about half as long as heterosexuals, is it fair
to say that nature rewards with good health those who practice traditional
morality?
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda |
15 Oct 2006 07:44:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
One would think that a university professor would be more ethical and
honest. Apparently not, this article of his begins with outright lies
A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/13/legislating_morality,_p\
art_ii
[just an example -- excerpt ]
Legislating morality, Part II
By Mike S. Adams
Friday, October 13, 2006
Send an email to Mike S. Adams
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?
James Madison never said the above. It is a bogus quote.
Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10
commandments?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Religion is the foundation of government?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
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"?
One doesn't have to read Madison very long to find the following which
defiens his meaings and intenst quite clearly
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to
The Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions,
etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample
etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more adapted
to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory
between the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has
been made by a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently
distinguish the nature of the one acquisition from that of the other,
and seems to imply that the acquisition from France was wholly on the
other side of the Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor.
The jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will
be less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see
Ford, VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty
from the Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian
treaty requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the
stipulations in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification";
see ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington,
Oct. 1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II,
1790 -1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North
Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my
objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist
Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always
regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil
Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise
discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina,
June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth
President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order
Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp
511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its
functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and
the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have
been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from
the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison,
in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on
Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in
the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already
furnished in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William
Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these
observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The
entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and
Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I
have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one
has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in
greater purity the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from
James Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J.
B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison
on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y.
(1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible
case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion
and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions
and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one
side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between
them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the
government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity
of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses
on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard
Hunt, [not sure what the volume number is but have enough information
presented here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
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?
We all know that the above was merely a footnote and has no legal
standing at all
Secular Humanism and the Courts
Secular Humanism, Is it a religion? A discussion of "Secular humanism"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sechum.htm
What the United States Supreme Court has really said about "Secular
Humanism"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sec-hum3.htm
References to Secular Humanism in Federal Circuit Court Cases
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sec-hum2.htm
That was just the beginning of his propaganda
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda |
15 Oct 2006 10:35:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:44:50 -0400, buckeye-elo wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
One would think that a university professor would be more ethical and
honest. Apparently not, this article of his begins with outright lies
A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/13/legislating_morality,_p\
art_ii
[just an example -- excerpt ]
Thanks for the explanations and clarifications. I always wonder if the
theistic zealots are deluded, or intentionally lying? In this case, does
Mr Adams really believe that the founders of the US Constitution did NOT
intend to keep religion and government separate (for the first time in the
history of civilization)? Or, does he know that somewhere in the back of
his brain, but keeps it under wraps because it is more important to
comandeer the government as an instrument of Christian evangelization?
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda |
15 Oct 2006 10:48:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:35:53 GMT, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:44:50 -0400, buckeye-elo wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
One would think that a university professor would be more ethical and
honest. Apparently not, this article of his begins with outright lies
A great study in bogus false ***** propaganda
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2006/10/13/legislating_morality,_p\
art_ii
[just an example -- excerpt ]
Thanks for the explanations and clarifications. I always wonder if the
theistic zealots are deluded, or intentionally lying? In this case, does
Mr Adams really believe that the founders of the US Constitution did NOT
intend to keep religion and government separate (for the first time in the
history of civilization)? Or, does he know that somewhere in the back of
his brain, but keeps it under wraps because it is more important to
comandeer the government as an instrument of Christian evangelization?
In their eyes there's nothing wrong with lying for Jesus. They know
they're lying but it's OK in this case. But when they're called what
are for doing it they go ape-***** because in their minds they're not
liars.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
