From: "Justin [delete]
To: The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
Subject: Question concerning link addition
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:20:59 -0700
Dear Mr. Allison and Ms. Batte,
I was going through your site during some research and noticed you had a
links page.
We do, but we tend to exchange links, we link them, they link us. That
benefits both.
The way Google works, the more places that link to you, the higher you
are ranked. One sided links help you but not us.
I'd like to share the website
www.undergodprocon.org with you for possible use. Our site focuses on
whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include the words "under God" and
explores the relevant legal, spiritual, political and historical
debate. The
Pledge serves as a framework to examine the separation of church and
state
and a host of other related issues. We also cite every source including
their contact information.
First of all, I need to tell you that I am one of Mike Newdow's
historical researchers on the "under God" topic.
ProCon.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit dedicated to providing free,
accurate
and unbiased information on contentious issues. Our purpose is purely
educational.
Yet there are errors of fact on your site
We've been cited as a source or recommended as a link for further
research
by such media organizations as CBS's 60 Minutes, New York Times, BBC,
Forbes
Magazine and chosen as a Yahoo! Pick of the Week. I hope you'll
consider us
for a link.
The Library of Congress and a fair number of other well established
institutions and organizations have been cited and recommended yet
they say Geo Washington said "So help me God" when sworn in as
President in April 1789. Not only that but they say that set a
precedence that every President has followed since.
Only problem with that is, it isn't true. Mike Newdow, the late USAF
Lt Col (retired) Glen Goffin, myself Raymond Soller and Matt
Goldstein have researched this and found it to be false. Washington
never said it nor did any other President say it until the late
1800s. Even at that , not every President said those words after the
1880s
Our Con Principle site has been cited in articles, at least one
published book and at least one more soon to be published. At least
one legal brief submitted to the U S Supreme Court, on a PBS series
with Bill Moyer and a host of other places, MA thesis and other
papers.
Am I understand that you want us to add you to our links section, yet
you have no links section as such?
Thank you for your reporting and please if you have any question or
comments
about us or ideas to improve our service please feel free to let us know.
I find your Theoretical Credibility Ranking a bit
"odd"
I think you would have been better off doing nothing rather than what
you did do in that area.
While you do identify by adding pro and con, you treat groups of
people, organizations etc as equal. They are not all equal.
By and large the American Public is historically challenged , even
more so on the topic of church state separation.
You are not altering that when you offer the con artist David Barton,
who has absolutely no credibility or the Late Chief Justice William
Rehnquist's dissent in Wallace v Jaffree. That dissent is full of
historical errors of fact as a valid CON (NO) to your PRO (YES)
Everson v Bd of Ed
You're offering people organizations etc with no background or
context at al.
You offer the following
John Jay
First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court "Providence
has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the
duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to
select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
From a Feb. 28, 1797 letter to to clergyman Jedidiah Morse
*********************************************
There is a problem with the above. It didn't happen.
Such a letter was written but it wasn't written in 1797 nor was it
written to
Jedidiah Morse. It was written much, much later after Jay had retired
from any public office
Another had said:
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans
should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."-Truth!
I REPLIED
The exact quote is "Providence has given to our people the choice of
their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and
interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for
their rulers."
Jay wrote it in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797.
You can find it here, for example, without any cites
http://snyders.ws/alan/quotes/jay.htm
But below is information that is fully cited and took place ,long
after Jay was off the Supreme Court and a private citizen.
THE CONTEXT
The context of his famous "Christian nation" comment that so many of
accommodationists like to toss out, but never seem to have any real
knowledge about; i. e. some claim he ruled as in ruled in a court
case or this was a **Christian nation,** others claim his **Christian
nation** words were some sort of official correspondence, etc. As you
see below, neither theory is correct.
***** ***** ***** *****
EVIDENCE:
ITEM #1
John Jay was retired from public office.
The first letter is a letter he wrote acknowledging he had been
elected one of the vice-presidents of the American Bible Society.
The second letter is the letter where he makes the comment in
question. Both letters are written in 1816, long after he was off the
US Supreme Court.
Note also that the American Bible Society was a private organization,
not government or public owned.
Jay was offering his personal opinion as a private citizen and one of
the vice-presidents of a privately owned and operated organization
*************************************************************************
Letter #1
JAY TO Rev. DR. ROMEYN.
BEDFORD, I2th June, 1816.
REV. SIR :
Your letter of the Ist inst., informing me that I had been
elected one of the vice-presidents of the American Bible Society,
arrived by the last mail.
I rejoice in the institution of that national society and
assure the Board of Managers that I am very sensible of the honour
they have done me in thus connecting me with it.
The events and circumstances under which such societies have
been established and multiplied, in my opinion, indicate an origin
which makes it the duty of all Christians to unite in giving them
decided patronage and zealous support.
I have the honour to be, with respect and esteem,
Rev. sir,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN JAY.
------ ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ --
Letter #2
JAY TO JOHN MURRAY, JUN,
BEDFORD, 12th October, 1816.
Accept, my good friend, my thanks for your kind letter of the
22d ult., and for the Pamphlets enclosed with it. They came to my
hands on the 2d inst. The state of may health is such, that I can
read or write but little at a time without fatigue; and, therefore, I
cannot prudently venture on the task you recommend; Whether war; of
every description is prohibited by the gospel, is one of those
questions on which the excitement of any of the passions can produce
no light. An answer to it can result only from careful investigation
and fair reasoning.
It appears to me that the gospel not only recognizes the
whole moral law, and extends and perfects our knowledge of it,`but
also enjoins on aid mankind the observance of it. Being ordained by a
legislator of infinite wisdom and rectitude, and in whom there is "no
variableness," it must be free from imperfection, and therefore never
has, nor ever will require amendment or alteration. Hence I conclude
that the moral law is exactly the same now that it was before the flood.
That all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed
from culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture Language from
lusts), on the one side or on the other, is too clear to require
proof. As to wars of an opposite description, and many such there have
been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending party in our
days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against and
defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils,
and, instead of being blamed, was blessed.
What should we think of a human legislator who should
authorize or encourage infractions of his own laws? If wars of every
kind and description are prohibited by the moral law, I see no way of
reconciling such a prohibition with those parts of Scripture which
record institutions, declarations, and interpositions of the Almighty
which manifestly evince the contrary. If every war is sinful, how did
it happen that the sin of waging any war is not specified among the
numerous sins and offences which are mentioned and reproved in both
the Testaments ?
To collect and arrange the many facts and arguments which
relate to this subject would require more time and application than I
am able to bestow. The aforegoing are hinted merely to exhibit some of
the reasons on which my opinion rests.
It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition
should Prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing
it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real
Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and
therefore will not provoke war.
Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and
pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise
or virtuous. Providence given to our people the choice of their
rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of
our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
The sentiment expressed in the extract from your brother's
letter corresponds: with his benevolent disposition. He has been "
diligent in well-doing," and his works will not cease to receive, as
well as deserve, commendation. When you write to him, assure him of my
esteem and regar'd.
I thank you for the kind wishes expressed in the conclusion
of your letter. They refer to topics on which I have been accustomed
to meditate, and are far more important than any which belong this
transient scene.
With the best wishes for your welfare, in the most enlarged
sense,
I remain, your obliged friend,
JOHN JAY.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Correspondence and Public Papers of John
Jay. 1794- 1826, Edited by Henry P. Johnston, A.M. Vol. IV. G. P.
Putnam's Sons. (1893) pp 389, 391-93)
****************************************************************************
SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Someone in a post claimed that Congress had formed the American Bible
Society
The facts are:
Claiming that the Continental Congress formed the American
Bible Society is also a lie. The ABS wasn't formed until May
1816...and then not by Congress. Here is a copy of a letter received
from that organization.
[Thank you for writing to the American Bible Society. We know
of no other American Bible Society before this one. We were founded in
May of 1816. Attached is the file that gives the biographical
information of the men who attended the Founding Convention in 1816.
Please notice that this is the founding date of the American Bible
Society and it is quite a few years after that of the Declaration of
Independence or the U.S. Constitution. John Jay, one of the authors of
the Constitution was our 2nd President, but he was too old and ill to
do anything with the Society's day to day activities. His duties were
purely ceremonial. One of his son's attended the founding convention
and so his biography is included in the file.
In Eighteenth Century America, a person would have to belong to an
established Protestant Church to be included in Society. Some places
likeMaryland included Catholics in the "accepted" group or
Pennsylvania withthe Quakers. Religious intolerance was the norm, not
the exception. Theearliest colonial institutions of higher learning
were created to educatemen and boys for the clergy. It was the same in
Europe, the great medievaluniversities existed to prepare men for
positions in the Catholic Church,and in other parts of the world.
You may be interested to read more about the ABS history available on
ourLibrary and Archives pages on the website www.americanbible.org.
Pleasedon't hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Martha Foley
Archives/Records Management Supervisor
American Bible Society
1865 Broadway
New York, NY 10023]
***********************************************************************
A Timeline of American Bible Society History
http://www.americanbible.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abs_history_of_abs
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I don't agree with the information that says all 13 Colonies
supported religion nor with your 1830 time frame for the end of
support in Virginia.
I note that you are careful to use the word support religion rather
than to say had an establishment of religion. I think that is a
semantic game and once more confuses rather than educates.
Four Colonies never had any form of established religion.
I haven't looked over the entire site, the above are just some of the
things that bothered me
If I were to link to your site I would have to say I could not vouch
for the accuracy of the information contained there and have, in fact,
found some errors and some areas that is more confusing than it is
in clarifying or accurately educating.
ja
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
