ef_hutterite <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
:|On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:39:19 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>ef_hutterite <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:27:24 -0400, wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>Gee guy did actual facts leave you speechless huh?
:|>>:|
:|>>:|From you???
:|>>:|
:|>>:|LOl, not hardly.
:|>
:|>Lame attempts to avoid
:|
:|
:|http://www.christianparents.com/deconst.htm
:|Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence
:|
:|The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and
:|letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the
:|spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution
:|in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
:|
:|The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of
:|Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of
:|Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great
:|document in the government of these United States and is not to be
:|understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution
:|stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see
:|hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about
:|our American government. See Article VII.
:|
:|The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in
:|our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their
:|government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the
:|Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the
:|recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.
:|
[snip the rest of the propaganda]
In another forum:
[Quote:]
Originally Posted by B[delete]
In a related thread, I had mentioned an email discussion I was having with
one of the writers at STACLU. In those emails, she has twice referred me to
one of her articles regarding the Constitution:
http://www.debrajmsmith.com/usframe.html
I am looking at it, and am having some trouble understanding the points she
is making. Perhaps others here can clarify, and point out any strengths or
weaknesses you think it has.
From my vantage, she appears to be grasping much too far with this
paragraph:
[Quoting Debra Smith]
Notice the prepositional phrase of the independence of the United States of
America the twelfth. When a prepositional phrase is joined to the rest of
the sentence with the conjunction and, the little word and does an amazing
thing. It joins that prepositional phrase with another prepositional phrase
within the sentence, making it of equal value contextually and parallel to
the other phrase in the writing.
[end quote of Debra Smith]
I was thinking of writing a parody paragraph to make the point, but will
have to give that some thought. Any and all thoughts regarding the rest of
the article would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
B[delete]
[ end quote ]
[my reply]
It appears that she at least one of the things she is trying to do is to is
to link the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which is a
common and ongoing effort by the theocrats, Radical Religious Right.
They like the DOI. Not the entire thing mind you, basically just for the
following:
A Big Fuss Over Nothing
An analysis of 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: the Declaration of Independence, Articles
of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, Federalist Papers, Constitution of
the United States
http://candst.tripod.com/bigfuss.htm
]excerpt]
Excerpts from the Declaration of Independence (1776)
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 is given to
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
not 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.
[end excerpt]
In the following you will find more than enough to refute her assertions
The Declaration of Independence (1776)
* Introduction
* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word "Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
* Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence, Didn't
"Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
along with
o Sundays Excepted
http://candst.tripod.com/sundays.htm
o "Sunday Excepted" & "Year of Our lord" (1830-1833)
http://candst.tripod.com/sundays2.htm
***************************************************
From the series on the DOI a couple things of of special note
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
(1) The Christian Statesman (The Christian Statesman is still the official
publication of the NRA (National Reform Association. )
Declaration of Independence and National Renewal by William Einwechter
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/natrnew.html
(2) The Christian Statesman
Declaration of Independence as Moral and Constitutional Law: Whatever
Happened to the Bible?
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/decaslaw.html
(3) National Reform Association
Post-Civil War attempts to incorporate religious language into the
Constitution
* First major attempts to amend the Constitution 1863 - 1880
http://candst.tripod.com/postciv.htm
* The NRA (National Reform Association) and the Christian Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/nra.htm
o The Proposed Christian Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/chrsamnd.htm
The Second Wave Attempts to Amend the Constitution 1880 - 1949
Sixty-four religious measures introduced in Congress -- 1888 - 1910
* Chronology of Religious Measures Introduced in Congress between 1888 -
1910
http://candst.tripod.com/law1888.htm
* Religious Measures in Congress 1888 - 1949
http://candst.tripod.com/1888-49.htm
(4) Objections Admitting the Principle Involved, But Urged Against the
Expediency of the Movement.
Objection 1. The Constitution already acknowledges God.
The objector says, substantially: "The proposed amendment is just and
proper, but it is unnecessary. God and Christianity are now acknowledged in
the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the proof of such
acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to the Christian Sabbath
in the clause, "Sundays excepted," making th'~ Sabbath a dies non in the
reckoning of days during which the Resident may retain a bill for approval,
the mention of the common law, and the formula of date. These are all. They
hardly require notice. It may be said in brief, however, that the mention
of the Sabbath is simply an incidental allusion, an evidence, indeed, that
there was a Sabbath known; but it is no acknowledgment of the obligation of
the Sabbath. The dating again is no part of the instrument. It merely marks
the time. And more than all else, the name of God was excluded from the
form of the President's oath, incorporated in the
Constitution. Can these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the
common law, be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's
subjection to God and his government? It is now almost universally admitted
that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely devoid is
our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes of both
infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more Christian than
Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his paper read before the
Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to adapt it to a Mohammedan
nation. Admiring, as we do, the many ex eN lencies of our Constitution, we
are constrained to admit this sad defect. If it is still claimed that an
acknowledgment of God and Christianity is in the Constitution, it must also
be admitted that such an acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be
made so clear and explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is
there rightfully ought to be there indisputably.*
_______________________
* For another remark In this connectian, see last page
[the following is the last page referenced]
Since the foregoing pages were stereotyped, the First Objection has been
brought to our notice in another form by an eminent citizen of New England.
He says "The Declaration of Independence is really the, full Preamble of
the Constitution. It sets forth sentiments and principles; the Constitution
follows it with rules and regulations. That document, at the outset,
declares it to be a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with all their rights; and closes with an appeal
'to the Supreme Judge of the World.'"
We are fully sensible of the value of these expressions in the Declaration.
They prove that the nation then owned her allegiance to God. They vindicate
her right, now strenuously denied, to acknowledge God in public documents.
They show that what we propose is consistent with the spirit and example of
our fathers, in the noblest passages of our history. But we must clearly
distinguish between these two documents. The Declaration is not part of the
written Constitution. Its value is historical rather than legal. It is a
deed of the nation which has passed into history; the Constitution, as a
law, is an ever-present act of the nation's will.. The argument which is
drawn from the silence of the Constitution concerning God and Religion
against all Christian features of our government as contrary to " our
political covenant," nut covered by the bond, cannot be adequately met by
an appeal in the Declaration of 1776.
Source: Answers to Objections to the Religious Amendment of the United
States Constitution. By the Rev. D. M'allister. (1874} The Christian
Statesman Tracts No. 6
(5) "The second of these reasons is, 'the sinful character of our nation'.
Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have described, the
irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to furnish a most
painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our
Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD; without any recognition of
his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his
existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once,
his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our
national existence under the present system, without GOD. I wish I could
say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, 'due to his' great
'Name', and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been
more public, visible, uniform, and fervent."
"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that 'the eagerness, with
which public offices are hunted for', and the sacrifices of principle and
conscience, which, as we have but too much reason to believe, are made, in
order to acquire them, constitute a great and dreadful sin; and are a deep
brand upon the moral character of our country...."
The quote is from "A discourse in two parts : delivered July 23, 1812, on
the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College / by Timothy Dwight..." ( I
also note that he is Timothy Dwight, D.D.L.L.D., President of that
Seminary; Published at the request of the students, and others; New Haven;
Published by Howe and Deforest; Sold also by A.T. Goodrich and Co. No, 124,
Broadway, New-York; Printed by J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York)
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
