| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2003 07:17:00 AM |
| Object: |
Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
The religious right extremists never give up. It is obvious they either
can't read the U S Constitution or American history, or they don't want
the current constitutional form of government.
***********************************
Posted: 6/21/1999
The Text of Amendment No.28:
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part A of House Report 106-186. (H4364-4469)
AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. ADERHOLT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Aderholt:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
EC. XX. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by
their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of
nature's God.
(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions
of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of
the blessings of liberty.
(3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government.
(4) The rights secured under the First Amendment have been
interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be included among
the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(5) The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively the
powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the
States.
(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays
of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.
(7) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants the Congress power
to enforce the provisions of the said amendment.
(8) Article I, Section 8, grants the Congress power to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and Article III, Section 1, grants
the Congress power to ordain and establish courts in which the judicial
power of the United States Government shall be vested.
SEC. XX. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.
(a) Display of Ten Commandments: The power to display the Ten
Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several
States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among the
powers reserved to the States respectively.
(b) Expression of Religious Faith: The expression of religious faith
by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the
several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby"
(1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of
religion made or enforced by the United States Government or by any
department or executive or judicial officer thereof; and
(2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State shall
deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers
reserved to the States respectively.
(c) Exercise of Judicial Power: The courts constituted, ordained, and
established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner
consistent with the foregoing declarations.
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
14 Dec 2003 07:34:57 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:klootvoq7tidbj72kqhc43tg0odf71qqjb@4ax.com...
The religious right extremists never give up. It is obvious they either
can't read the U S Constitution or American history, or they don't want
the current constitutional form of government.
They are fundamentalists. They share the characteristics of all
fundamentalists: self righteousness, intolerance of others, and the fantasy
that only their ideas will make the world a better place.
***********************************
Posted: 6/21/1999
The Text of Amendment No.28:
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part A of House Report 106-186. (H4364-4469)
AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. ADERHOLT
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Aderholt:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
EC. XX. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by
their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of
nature's God.
(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions
of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of
the blessings of liberty.
What the hell is an organic law? One printed on paper made from organically
grown trees?
(3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States
Government.
(4) The rights secured under the First Amendment have been
interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be included among
the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(5) The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively the
powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the
States.
(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays
of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.
(7) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants the Congress power
to enforce the provisions of the said amendment.
(8) Article I, Section 8, grants the Congress power to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and Article III, Section 1,
grants
the Congress power to ordain and establish courts in which the judicial
power of the United States Government shall be vested.
SEC. XX. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.
(a) Display of Ten Commandments: The power to display the Ten
Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several
States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among
the
powers reserved to the States respectively.
(b) Expression of Religious Faith: The expression of religious faith
by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the
several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby"
(1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
of
religion made or enforced by the United States Government or by any
department or executive or judicial officer thereof; and
(2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State shall
deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers
reserved to the States respectively.
(c) Exercise of Judicial Power: The courts constituted, ordained,
and
established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner
consistent with the foregoing declarations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 06:47:00 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:klootvoq7tidbj72kqhc43tg0odf71qqjb@4ax.com...
:|> The religious right extremists never give up. It is obvious they either
:|> can't read the U S Constitution or American history, or they don't want
:|> the current constitutional form of government.
:|
:|They are fundamentalists. They share the characteristics of all
:|fundamentalists: self righteousness, intolerance of others, and the fantasy
:|that only their ideas will make the world a better place.
:|> (2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions
:|> of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of
:|> the blessings of liberty.
:|
:|What the hell is an organic law? One printed on paper made from organically
:|grown trees?
Here is one opinion of what someone thinks "Organic Law" is.
"The Organic Law"
Christianity in American Law
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/organic_law.htm
Abstract
OF THE ARTICLE THAT WILL SOON APPEAR HERE
Maybe you've seen the article that should go here. Send us
the link Or send us the book or journal article and we'll plagiarize it
like all our other pages.
Here's what it says:
* The "Organic Law" is the Fundamental Law of a Government System.
* The US Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. U.S. declared that America
"is a Christian nation."
* This was not a demographic survey or poll of people's opinions.
* The Court was speaking of the nation's fundamental laws and charters:
its "organic law."
Resources
Black's Law Dictionary, Rev. 4th Ed.
ORGANIC LAW - The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or
nation, written or unwritten; that law or system of laws or principles
which defines and establishes the organization of its government.
St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 46 S.W. 976, 42 L.R.A. 686, 86 Am.St. Rep.
575
U.S. Supreme Court, Holy Trinity v. U.S.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal
language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm
that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings,
declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak
the voice of the entire people.
These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation.
In PUBLIC CITIZEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), JUSTICE
KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring
in the judgment, wrote:
The Church of the Holy Trinity entered into a contract with an alien
residing in England to come to the United States to serve as the director
and pastor of the church. Notwithstanding the fact that this agreement fell
within the plain language of the statute, which was conceded to be the
case, see ibid., the Court overrode the plain language, drawing instead on
the background and purposes of the statute to conclude that Congress did
not intend its broad prohibition to cover the importation of Christian
ministers. The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that
Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy
review of the "mass of organic utterances" establishing that "this is a
Christian nation," and which were taken to prove that it could not "be
believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a
misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a
Christian minister residing in another nation." Id., at 471.
Justice David Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905)
Justice Brewer pointed out that his claim (that America is a "Christian
nation") reached into the "organic law" of the nation, and every State in
the union, thus putting it on the firmest of legal authority. The claim
that America is a Christian nation is in "the domain of official action and
recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." (p 27 in 1996 reprint).
Until you send us this article, readers of this page will have to be
content with the following dialogue on American OnLine's "Separation of
Church and State" Discussion Board.
Subject: Justice Douglas on Religion in Public Schools
From: (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 11:27:49 EDT
Even though Justice Douglas concurred in Engel v. Vitale, which removed
voluntary prayer from public schools, he admitted that
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system.
The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in
Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged."
Remember the saying, "The end doesn't justify the means."
In the Northwest Ordinance, the "end" is religion and morality, and the
"means" are public schools. The Founding Fathers believed that the end
required the means, that public schools served the purpose of advancing
religion.
The Northwest Ordinance is one of the nation's "organic laws," along with
the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (see West's edition of
the U.S. Code, vol. 1, which lists them as among the "organic laws of the
United States."). Douglas says this Ordinance "antedated the First
Amendment," by which he hopes to make us think that it came long before
some great revolution of thought embodied in the First Amendment. The
Ordinance was approved by the House on July 21, 1789, and by the Senate on
Aug 4, 1789. This was the same Congress that was simultaneously framing the
religion clauses of the First Amendment. And for decades after the Bill of
Rights was passed, this Ordinance was extended by Congress to new states
admitted to the Union. For example,
When the Ohio territory applied for statehood in 1802, Congress framed an
"enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a
manner "not repugnant to the [Northwest] Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's
constitution declared:
[R]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
When Mississippi applied for statehood in 1817, Congress required that its
government be formed in a manner "not repugnant to the principles of the
Ordinance." Hence, Mississippi's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government,
the preservation of liberty and the happiness of mankind, schools and the
means of education shall forever be encouraged in this State.
The Constitutions of Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas (1858), Nebraska (1875),
and many other territorial papers and state constitutions make clear that
government had a duty to promote Christianity. The Northwest Ordinance was
signed by President Washington on Aug 7, 1789. "History must judge whether
it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today,
which has strayed from the meaning of the [First Amendment]." (Justice
Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree.)
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 07:05:02 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:d9brtv4mtl51qolvd7rm2qqd3o780a32ok@4ax.com...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:klootvoq7tidbj72kqhc43tg0odf71qqjb@4ax.com...
:|> The religious right extremists never give up. It is obvious they
either
:|> can't read the U S Constitution or American history, or they don't
want
:|> the current constitutional form of government.
:|
:|They are fundamentalists. They share the characteristics of all
:|fundamentalists: self righteousness, intolerance of others, and the
fantasy
:|that only their ideas will make the world a better place.
:|> (2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the
constitutions
:|> of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the
source of
:|> the blessings of liberty.
:|
:|What the hell is an organic law? One printed on paper made from
organically
:|grown trees?
Here is one opinion of what someone thinks "Organic Law" is.
Thanks, but I don't get it. Sounds like common law and the Constitution.
What am I missing?
Or is it some mystical thing used to justify the idea of a "Christian
nation" and other "common sense" that exists only in the minds of
extremists.
"The Organic Law"
Christianity in American Law
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/organic_law.htm
Abstract
OF THE ARTICLE THAT WILL SOON APPEAR HERE
Maybe you've seen the article that should go here. Send us
the link Or send us the book or journal article and we'll plagiarize it
like all our other pages.
Here's what it says:
* The "Organic Law" is the Fundamental Law of a Government System.
* The US Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. U.S. declared that America
"is a Christian nation."
* This was not a demographic survey or poll of people's opinions.
* The Court was speaking of the nation's fundamental laws and
charters:
its "organic law."
Resources
Black's Law Dictionary, Rev. 4th Ed.
ORGANIC LAW - The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or
nation, written or unwritten; that law or system of laws or principles
which defines and establishes the organization of its government.
St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 46 S.W. 976, 42 L.R.A. 686, 86 Am.St. Rep.
575
U.S. Supreme Court, Holy Trinity v. U.S.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal
language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm
that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings,
declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak
the voice of the entire people.
These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation.
In PUBLIC CITIZEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), JUSTICE
KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring
in the judgment, wrote:
The Church of the Holy Trinity entered into a contract with an alien
residing in England to come to the United States to serve as the director
and pastor of the church. Notwithstanding the fact that this agreement
fell
within the plain language of the statute, which was conceded to be the
case, see ibid., the Court overrode the plain language, drawing instead on
the background and purposes of the statute to conclude that Congress did
not intend its broad prohibition to cover the importation of Christian
ministers. The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that
Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its
lengthy
review of the "mass of organic utterances" establishing that "this is a
Christian nation," and which were taken to prove that it could not "be
believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a
misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a
Christian minister residing in another nation." Id., at 471.
Justice David Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905)
Justice Brewer pointed out that his claim (that America is a
"Christian
nation") reached into the "organic law" of the nation, and every State in
the union, thus putting it on the firmest of legal authority. The claim
that America is a Christian nation is in "the domain of official action
and
recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." (p 27 in 1996 reprint).
Until you send us this article, readers of this page will have to be
content with the following dialogue on American OnLine's "Separation of
Church and State" Discussion Board.
Subject: Justice Douglas on Religion in Public Schools
From: (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 11:27:49 EDT
Even though Justice Douglas concurred in Engel v. Vitale, which removed
voluntary prayer from public schools, he admitted that
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system.
The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in
Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged."
Remember the saying, "The end doesn't justify the means."
In the Northwest Ordinance, the "end" is religion and morality, and the
"means" are public schools. The Founding Fathers believed that the end
required the means, that public schools served the purpose of advancing
religion.
The Northwest Ordinance is one of the nation's "organic laws," along with
the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (see West's edition
of
the U.S. Code, vol. 1, which lists them as among the "organic laws of the
United States."). Douglas says this Ordinance "antedated the First
Amendment," by which he hopes to make us think that it came long before
some great revolution of thought embodied in the First Amendment. The
Ordinance was approved by the House on July 21, 1789, and by the Senate on
Aug 4, 1789. This was the same Congress that was simultaneously framing
the
religion clauses of the First Amendment. And for decades after the Bill of
Rights was passed, this Ordinance was extended by Congress to new states
admitted to the Union. For example,
When the Ohio territory applied for statehood in 1802, Congress framed an
"enabling act" which required that Ohio form its state government in a
manner "not repugnant to the [Northwest] Ordinance." As a result, Ohio's
constitution declared:
[R]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to
the
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
When Mississippi applied for statehood in 1817, Congress required that its
government be formed in a manner "not repugnant to the principles of the
Ordinance." Hence, Mississippi's constitution declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government,
the preservation of liberty and the happiness of mankind, schools and the
means of education shall forever be encouraged in this State.
The Constitutions of Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas (1858), Nebraska (1875),
and many other territorial papers and state constitutions make clear that
government had a duty to promote Christianity. The Northwest Ordinance was
signed by President Washington on Aug 7, 1789. "History must judge whether
it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court
today,
which has strayed from the meaning of the [First Amendment]." (Justice
Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree.)
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 03:45:31 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|Thanks, but I don't get it. Sounds like common law and the Constitution.
:|What am I missing?
:|
:|Or is it some mystical thing used to justify the idea of a "Christian
:|nation" and other "common sense" that exists only in the minds of
:|extremists.
Ok I found what I was looking for:
AMERICAN ORGANIC LAWS
************************************************
(1)
From: ()
Subject: Re: Moore is a liar
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian,
alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-09-02 06:24:50 PST
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B59A450D6
*****************************************************
(2)
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.liberalism,alt
..politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Moore is a liar
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:11:05 -0400
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2E9210D6
************************************************
(3)
From: Mark K. Bilbo (iskanipa-y@hoo.com)
Subject: Re: Moore is a liar
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-09-02 09:04:37 PST
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L21B510D6
*******************************************************
(4)
From: ()
Subject: Re: I am an American
View: Complete Thread (69 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-09-18 03:38:34 PST
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I4CA510D6
****************************************************
(5)
From: ()
Subject: Re: Moore is a liar
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.education,
alt.religion.christian, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.usa.republican
Date: 2003-09-24 12:05:50 PST
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5C8310D6
******************************************************
What we have is lovely little formula that certain people like to play;
It goes something like this:
Common Law, Blackstone, Joseph Story, i.e. Christianity is part and parcel
of the English Common Law. The basis if American Law is English Common Law
Declaration of Independence, claims all our rights come from God
Articles of Confederation refer to God and Congress passed various
religious orientated acts under the A.O.C. Also Cont had Chaplains, dated
In Year of Our Lord
Northwest Ordinance, first sentence of Article III metnions religion
Constitution exempted Sundays and said In year of Our Lord
First Congress appointed chaplains
USSC "said" this was a "Christian Nation" in the Holy Trinity case
*********************************************************
The above it the formula of "proof" that some peopel try to advance.
Some or most or all aspects of it can be hot topics on here. From June of
this year there has been over 1000 posts tossed back and forth on the topic
with about 3 or 4 people on the "is so" side and about a dozen or more on
the "is not" side.
************************************************************
BIG FUSS OVER NOTHING
REAL AND IMAGINED REFERENCES TO GOD, CHRISTIANITY
AND RELIGION and lack THEREOF IN OBVIOUS PLACES IN
FIVE DOCUMENTS FROM THE FOUNDING PERIOD
OF OUR HISTORY
One constantly runs into comments by certain segments of those who post in
Usenet that this nation was founded on religious, i.e. Protestant Christian
principles. When pushed to show where such principles can be found they
mumble something abut the Declaration of Independence, sometimes the
Constitution and or Bible.
I have to wonder if these people every really read those documents. I
decided to look over those documents and to provide any and all mentions of
anything that could even remotely be the things these people are referring
to. I also provided some obvious places one might expect to find such
references, but there were none. In addition, I provided the wording that
actually broke unions and alliances between church (religion) and state
(Govt.)
What follows, emphasized by capitalizing are any and all mention and real
or imagined references or connections to Christianity and/or religion.
*****************************************
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776)
EXCERPTS FROM
Page URL:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.
html
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, --. . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of
the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent
States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a
firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to
each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
*****************************************
That's it. In the entire document sixteen words. No authority given
religion in the affairs of men. Why, it even mentions that the power of
government comes not from God but the people. This particular document did
mot form or found a government. It was a document designed to appeal to
Europeans, and to elicit aid and support from the people and governments of
Europe. Much ado about nothing.
*****************************************
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word "Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
*****************************************
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1777)
EXCERPT FROM
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm
ARTICLE I
III The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship
with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties,
and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each
other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of
them, on account of RELIGION, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense
whatever.
And Whereas it hath pleased the GREAT GOVERNOR OF THE WORLD to incline the
hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to
approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of
Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned
delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that
purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective
constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the
said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular
the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight
and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide
by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all
questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that
the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we
respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at
Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the YEAR
OF OUR LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third
Year of the independence of America.
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by
Maryland, 1 March, 1781
*****************************************
That's it. In the entire document just TEN words. While this particular
document did create a government of a sorts, a loose confederation of
several independent states (nations) as can be seen this document did not
form any kind of union or alliances between govt and religion. It gave no
power or authority to religion in civil matters nor did it give any power
or authority to the civil government in matters of religion. The evolution
is evident.. Less real or imagined references to God, Religion, etc in this
document than in the DOI.
*****************************************
NORTHWEST ORDINANCE (1787)
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner,
shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious
sentiments, in the said territory.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged.
*****************************************
The Northwest Ordinance (1787-89
The Northwest Ordinance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1.htm
The Northwest Ordinance: Course of Debate
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nwo1785.htm
*****************************************
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (1787, 1791)
EXCERPTS FROM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
ARTICLE I
Section 7. . . . If any bill shall not be returned by the President within
ten days (SUNDAYS EXCEPTED) after it shall have been presented to him, the
same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the
Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall
not be a law.
ARTICLE II
Section 1. . . . Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall
take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
ARTICLE VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be
bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO
RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States.
AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT BEFORE THE LIST OF SIGNERS:
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the
seventeenth day of September in the YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven
hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of
America the twelfth.
ADDED DECEMBER 15, 1791:
AMENDMENT I. . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
*****************************************
That's it. Absolutely no reference to God, Christianity or religion, except
as negatives on the government, denying alliances and unions between church
(religion) and state (govt.)
The evolution is complete. By following the three documents you will see
the evolution of an intent to separate church and state.
Some point to the words "Year of our Lord" and "Sundays excepted" as proof
or at least of evidence that the founders didn't want to separate church
and state.
I offer the following items:
(1) The Rev Jasper Adams, president of the College of Charleston, was the
second person to advance the idea of Sunday's excepted in his February 1833
sermon, later published, entitled The Relation of Christianity to Civil
Government in the United States. ( U S Senator Frelinghuysen in a speech
before the Senate in 1830 was the first) and the first to advance Year of
Our Lord as having made links between the U S Constitution and religion in
general or Christianityspecifically. Adams so 46 years after the U S
Constitution was framed 45 years after it was ratified, 44 years after our
government began operating under it and 42 years after the "BORs" were
added to it.
The above took place long after the founding of this nation. No founder had
ever advanced either of those theories. in fact, one of the few founders
still alive at that time, James Madison disagreed with Jasper Adams's
opinions on this matter.
Who do you think was in the better position to know?
*****************************************
(2) Sundays Excepted
http://candst.tripod.com/sundays.htm
"Sunday Excepted" & "Year of Our lord" (1830-1833)
http://candst.tripod.com/sundays2.htm
*****************************************
(3) Study Guide for The Roots of American Democracy
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
*****************************************
(4) Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
*****************************************
(5) Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government (1792)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
*****************************************
(6) How often did the founders quote the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg9.htm
*****************************************
(7) Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/montesquieu.htm
*****************************************
(8) Federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible, and use the words "so
help me God."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg11.htm
*****************************************
(9) Dangers and Comments on "We the People;" Factions, Including Religious
Sects, & Denominations; Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority;
Common Law and Other Things of Importance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 08:51:37 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:d9brtv4mtl51qolvd7rm2qqd3o780a32ok@4ax.com...
:|> "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> >:|news:klootvoq7tidbj72kqhc43tg0odf71qqjb@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> >:|> The religious right extremists never give up. It is obvious they
:|either
:|> >:|> can't read the U S Constitution or American history, or they don't
:|want
:|> >:|> the current constitutional form of government.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|They are fundamentalists. They share the characteristics of all
:|> >:|fundamentalists: self righteousness, intolerance of others, and the
:|fantasy
:|> >:|that only their ideas will make the world a better place.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >:|> (2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the
:|constitutions
:|> >:|> of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the
:|source of
:|> >:|> the blessings of liberty.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|What the hell is an organic law? One printed on paper made from
:|organically
:|> >:|grown trees?
:|>
:|> Here is one opinion of what someone thinks "Organic Law" is.
:|
:|Thanks, but I don't get it. Sounds like common law and the Constitution.
:|What am I missing?
:|
:|Or is it some mystical thing used to justify the idea of a "Christian
:|nation" and other "common sense" that exists only in the minds of
:|extremists.
:|
Black's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th Ed.
ORGANIC LAW - The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or
nation, written or unwritten; that law or system of laws or principles
which defines and establishes the organization of its government.
In actuality it really means nothing.
However, that doesn't mean anything to the libbertarians, religious right
extremists, ultra conservatives, etc.
They claim that the DOI, Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance,
etc, are the Organic Laws of this nation,
It is a back door approach to try and get the DOI, especially, but also
the Articles of Confederation and to a lessor degree the N.O. given legal
authority, since there are "religious" references to at least two of those
documents. Also, since there was no church state separation under the AOC
they feel this allows them to bring any and all Congressional religious
acts passed during that time into the fray and this all establishes a
"Christian Nation" pedigree.
The DOI wasn't isn't a fundamental law of anything. The AOC were dumped and
replaced with the Constitution which is the supreme law of this nation. The
N.O. as a law, applied to the territories only and once a territory became
a state it no longer applied. There was a Establishment Clause case taken
to the USSC on that matter and the court refused it since La was now a
state, thus the N.O. didn't apply. The N.O. require religious freedom.
************************************************************
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
(1)
CHAPTER 1 A "Christian Country and Christian People"`
The first source of the Christian nation concept during the nineteenth
century came from the notion that the American nation and its democratic
system were based on Christian principles. This notion was derived from
popular belief that the first settlers had been guided to the new land by
the providential hand of God which had in turn protected and nurtured the
colonies in their development into a nation. These providential influences
guided the Founding Fathers in creating the new government and found their
way into the nation's organic documents. Thus, central to this argument was
the belief that Christian principles provided the foundation for the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and for American democracy
itself. Because of these origins, the state had a special obligation to
promote Christian principles as a way of preserving both democratic and
religious institutions.
This view of America's Christian nationhood was widely shared in
varying degrees throughout the nineteenth century, especially during the
antebellum period, and is even espoused today. What is so remarkable about
this perspective is that it was not generally shared by the founders and
their contemporaries, but instead developed through a melding of America's
religious heritage with evangelical aspirations for America's millennial
role.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE RHETORIC AND REALITY OF THE
"CHRISTIAN NATION" MAXIM IN AMERICAN LAW, 1810-1920 by
Steven Keith Green A unpublished dissertation submitted to the Faculty of
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department
of History. Chapel Hill, (1997) p 22)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Evidence that the DOI did not create (found) the United States, is not
law, is not "organic law" of America, etc.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22D32FC6
(3)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F43D12FC6
(4) I have some errands to run. When I get back I will look for the other
post that I posted back when. I shows that in the mid 1800s those
particular documents were given no importance at all in a official
publication as I recall.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 02:35:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 7:05:02 -0600, Roger wrote
(in message <2kiDb.39869$652.27761@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>):
Thanks, but I don't get it. Sounds like common law and the Constitution.
What am I missing?
Or is it some mystical thing used to justify the idea of a "Christian
nation" and other "common sense" that exists only in the minds of
extremists.
It's generally an unimportant concept and used for "shorthand" more than
anything else. (But you're correct on it being, quite often a "wacko
mysticism").
The silliest instance of loons using the "organic law" phrase is a group of
wackos (I think it's the "Sheriiff's Posse Comitatus" run by one of the fool
who calls itself "John Knight"'s convict budddies who also has gotten active
in the Aryan Nation crapola in Montana after the founder got old and even
stranger and lost the "Nation's Capitol" in a lawsuit when the good people of
Montana told him to go get a set of silverware and to knife, spoon and fork
himself).
Anyway, this bong-de-bong (Jimmie Wickstrombolli) decided that the "organic
law" for the United States is composed of three documents:
1. The Declaration of Independence
2. The Articles of Confederation
3. The Bill of Rights
(yup; you can see why Wickstrombolli is a guide and an inspiration to the boy
who calls himself "John 'Crabs' Knight".
The term - "organic law - doesn't /have/ to be pejorative - it can be used
as in the "organic law of France" or the "organic law of Australia and so on.
But then you can get back into the wackos and loons as personified by these
convicted felons and it gets stupid and silly at the same time.
I was up on some "pay-triot"/"not-for-prophet" website the other day and it
had links to the "founding documents" of the United States of America and the
fifty states.
Being from Mississippi, I looked at the link: it was "The Mississippi
Constitution of 1890" (which is the presnt one) and in no way whatsoever can
be considered a "founding" document but a constitution written as a
reconstruction document (which is the main reason Mississippi's governor is
probably the weakest executive out of all the states).
So """John "Chancre" Knight""" and his felonious friends use "organic law" -
generally - as an introduction to psychopathic lying and fraud.
- - Gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hi, Im TVs Oscar The Grouch" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
14 Dec 2003 11:29:44 AM |
|
|
The Taliban comes to America.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
----- http://members.iglou.com/bandit ------
Check out my blog blogga blog at http://bandit73.pitas.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 12:56:19 AM |
|
|
"Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch" <bandit@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3fdc9de4.478406@news.cis.dfn.de...
The Taliban comes to America.
If they succeed, will those of us who fight them be called terrorists or
freedom fighters?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 01:29:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:56:19 GMT in alt.atheism, Roger ("Roger"
<rogerfx@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch" <bandit@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3fdc9de4.478406@news.cis.dfn.de...
The Taliban comes to America.
If they succeed, will those of us who fight them be called terrorists or
freedom fighters?
That depends on whether you win, or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabagimpy" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
14 Dec 2003 07:21:46 AM |
|
|
You're incredibly subtle attempts to shift the focus of todays news is
staggeringly pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 05:17:31 AM |
|
|
"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|You're incredibly subtle attempts to shift the focus of todays news is
:|staggeringly pathetic.
:|
Really?
Wow!!!!!!!
Your attempt at mind reading leaves much to be desired.
I don't pay any attention to the daily news, thus it would be hard to be
trying to shift any focus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 03:06:23 PM |
|
|
Gabagimpy wrote:
You're incredibly subtle attempts to shift the focus of todays news is
staggeringly pathetic.
What, exactly, *is* the "focus" of today's news? The fact that a
bunch of incredibly hard-working soldiers were able to find and
capture a dangerous criminal and bring him to justice? Or is it,
maybe, something more along the lines of an accomplishment that is
being credited to ole Dubya Bush and aren't we all so proud of him and
isn't he great and doesn't this improve his chances next November?
(Just who is shifting the "focus" of the news?)
Hussein's capture doesn't make Bush any less an idiot or any less a
religious fanatic or any less incompetent to hold such high public
office, and it doesn't change his chances of being re-elected by those
who already know his accomplishments. I got about half-way through
his press conference this morning before turning it off in disgust.
(After about the third or fourth time he used the word "commiserate"
when he meant to say "commensurate." The man can *not* talk without a
script! Why do his handlers let him make the attempt?
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AuntieLib" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 02:54:37 PM |
|
|
buckeye-ELO wrote:
<snip>
TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
EC. XX. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
instituted to secure certain unalienable rights,
You know, I'll take these idiots seriously when they learn to spell.
It's *in*alienable, not unalienable. Sheesh.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion
is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Mark Twain
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
15 Dec 2003 03:23:14 PM |
|
|
(AuntieLib) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO wrote:
:|
:|<snip>
:|
:|> TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
:|>
:|> SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
:|> EC. XX. FINDINGS.
:|> The Congress finds the following:
:|>
:|> (1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
:|> instituted to secure certain unalienable rights,
:|
:|You know, I'll take these idiots seriously when they learn to spell.
:|It's *in*alienable, not unalienable. Sheesh.
:|
I believe both words have been used.
In Alan Dershowitz's book America Declares Independence he mentions both:
"One rarely hears the word 'unalienable' - or even Jefferson's original
'inalienable" - spoken today.
Someplace else I saw a discussion over which word should be used. Don't
remember where anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Amendment #28 (1999) |
16 Dec 2003 01:51:58 PM |
|
|
In article <cbadfc8f.0312151254.51691eb8@posting.google.com> (AuntieLib) writes:
<buckeye-ELO wrote:
<
<<snip>
<
<> TITLE XX--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
<>
<> SEC. XX. FINDINGS.
<> EC. XX. FINDINGS.
<> The Congress finds the following:
<>
<> (1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are
<> instituted to secure certain unalienable rights,
<
<You know, I'll take these idiots seriously when they learn to spell.
<It's *in*alienable, not unalienable. Sheesh.
<
Actually, ol' Tommy the J did write "unalienable". But what would you
expect, he also had trouble with that pesky "it's" thing.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
