| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Harry Lime harrylime at harrylime dot teevee" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2005 12:30:30 PM |
| Object: |
Separation of Church/State in USA & The Religious Right |
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Pretty damn good article from a Christian point-of-view via a
Seminary/Theology school. So now all you idiots that claim that posts to
alt.satanism are just simple Christian baiting/bashing -- ***** you
mewling twats. Courtesy of www.harrylime.biz
Introduction
Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was
founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned,
such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its
revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and
put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the
imagination.
Why do some Christians imagine these men are Christians? Besides a
desperate desire that it should be so, in a selective examination of their
writings, one can discover positive statements about God and/or
Christianity. However, merely believing in God does not make a person a
Christian. The Bible says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no
God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But the Bible also says "You say
you believe in God. Good. The demons also believe and tremble."
Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence for demonstrating
either Christian principles or that a person is a Christian.
Perhaps, to start, it might be beneficial to remind ourselves of
what a Christian might be: it is a person who has acknowledged his or her
sinfulness, responded in faith to the person of Jesus Christ as the only one
who can redeem him, and by so doing been given the Holy Spirit.
The early church summarized the Christian message in six points:
1. Jesus came from God.
2. You killed him.
3. He rose again on the third day.
4. He sent the Holy Spirit
5. Repent and be baptized.
6. He's coming back.
An individual who would not acknowledge this much of the Christian
message could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a Christian.
The founding fathers of this country did not acknowledge this message. In
fact, they denied it.
Founders of the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was
uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New
Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to
miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.
There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the
history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer
audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of the Gospels stand out even in
that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the sangfroid
exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor in hand, he
sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) "2. or
3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening task of
reading the letters and papers of the day." He was apparently quite sure
that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text
of the New Testament...(Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and
his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press,
1989, p. 149. Click to go to a copy of The Jefferson Bible).
In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my
leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston:
Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the
faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of
Independence. But he was a Deist:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by
the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own
church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason".
Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing
Co., 1945, p. 362)
Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:
I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it] to be
false...(Roberts, p. 375)
About the afterlife, he wrote:
I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it
imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so
made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to
do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do. (Roberts, p.
375)
John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the
deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency
that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli,
which states in Article XI that:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character
of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against
any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and
Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949.
Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of
State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and
concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S. Senate
ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797; President Adams signed it on June 10,
1797 and it was first published in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress,
first session in 1797. Quite clearly, then, at this very early stage of the
American Republic, the U.S. government did not consider the United States a
Christian nation.
Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for
positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the
Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for
their deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark
to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to
us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live,
the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the
affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story
of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York:
Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)
It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four or
five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in
prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned that Franklin's motion was
voted down! Fine Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore, the
context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an especially
trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of
breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:
Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith, his
suggestion had been salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to a
realization that destiny herself sat as guest and witness in this room.
Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of thirteen united
states - venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual
sacrifice and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative
efforts. (Bowen, p. 127)
About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in a letter to Ezra
Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion. His
answer would indicate that he remained a Deist, not a Christian, to the end:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly
desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to
us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has
received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present
Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question
I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to
busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the
Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York:
The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
Deism
Certainly it is generally the case that these people believed in
God, but it was not the God of Christianity. Deism began in the eighteenth
century and was very popular in America. According to the dictionary, it was
"a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason
rather than revelation." Jefferson wrote that the religious doctrines of
Jesus that he accepted, and which he regarded as consistent with his deistic
perspective were three:
1. that there is one God, and he all-perfect:
2. that there is a future state of rewards and punishments
3. that to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is
the sum of religion.
Why do Christians want the founding fathers to be Christians?
Is it because they wish the best for these people?
Hardly.
It is because they hope that by demonstrating they were Christians,
they can justify their political agenda. Rather than wanting something new
(the injection of Christianity into government) they seek to restore
something they imagine has been lost.
Reality: nothing has been lost. It wasn't there to start with.
Therefore the whole concept of "taking back America" is a lie. America was
never Christian.
Recent Misinformation on the Concept of Separation of Church and State
Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating
church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it
is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court
decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true.
Separation of church and state is not something the Supreme Court
invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase itself appears in a letter from
President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury,
Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.
The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding
a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the
national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring
them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination
of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment
has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."
Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph
3:
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. (emphasis added)
The concept of the separation of church and state appears in the
1963 Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of an earlier statement where it
also appears) adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from
the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not
contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to
every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual
ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination
should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being
ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience
thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church
should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of
Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The
state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.
The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of
religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this
implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all
men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion
without interference by the civil power. (emphasis added).
Look at what Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, had to say
about religious freedom in the 17th century. He was a Baptist persecuted for
his faith who argued for the separation of church and state nearly a hundred
fifty years before Jefferson.
The Church and State need not be, Williams insisted, inextricably
linked: 'A Pagan or Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to carry the Ship
to its desired Port, as any Christian Mariner or Pilot in the World, and may
perform that work with as much safety and speed.' 'God requireth not an
Uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any Civill State,' he
declared. Rather, the tares in the field of Christian grain must be left
alone; let man hold whatever religious opinions he chooses provided he does
not 'actually disturb civil peace,' ran a provision of the Rhode Island
Charter of 1663; let civil government be based on the consent of the
governed. 'The Soveraigne, originall, and foundation of civil power lies in
the People,' Williams insisted. They 'may erect and establish what forme of
Government seemes to them most meete for their Civill condition.'
William's plea for Separation of Church and State stemmed far
less, Harold Laski writes, from tender concern for men's consciences than
from 'a fear that their unity meant the government of the Church by civil
men and thus a threat to its purity.' Popular control of the Church through
elected magistrates Williams thought evil since it gave the Church 'to Satan
himself, by whom all peoples natural are guided.' The precise intention of
Scripture could not be ascertained, he believed, with the icy certainty
claimed by the New England clergy. He wanted Church and State separated so
the Church would not be corrupted by the State. Thomas Jefferson entertained
the opposite conviction, fearing that the State would become contaminated by
the Church. (Alpheus Thomas Mason. Free Government in the Making: Readings
in American Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p.
55)
In his tract on the topic of religious toleration Williams madesome
important points:
...Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience,
is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under
the altar.
Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in
their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially
civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual,
or Christian, state and worship.
Sixthly. It is the will and command of God that, since the coming
of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish,
Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all men in
all nations and countries: and they are only to be fought against with that
sword which is only, in soul matters, able to conquer: to wit, the sword of
God's Spirit, the word of God.
Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people
thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no
pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.
Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be
enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner
or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience,
persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and
destruction of millions of souls.
Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil
state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jews'
conversion to Christ.
Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or
civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of
Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships than
a state professeth, only can, according to God, procure a firm and lasting
peace; good assurance being taken, according to the wisdom of the civil
state, for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and Christianity may both
flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and
contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile... (Roger Williams. The
Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience Discussed, 1644.
excerpted from A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965, p. 64)
Notice what Ulysses S. Grant said in his seventh annual address
(State of the Union address) to the Congress, December 7, 1875:
As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the
honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will
repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which
may be legislated upon and settled at this session:
First. That the States shall be required to afford the opportunity
of a good common-school education to every child within their limits.
Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school
supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of
any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to
deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after
the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who
may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.
Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but
each free within their proper spheres; and that all church property shall
bear its own proportion of taxation (emphasis added). (A Compilation of the
Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New York: Bureau of National
Literature, Inc., 1897, p. 4310)
Here is a quotation from the Encyclopedic Index of A Compilation of
the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, published in 1917:
Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest inspiration from
James Madison while he was in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was made
to levy a tax upon the people of that state "for the support of teachers of
the Christian religion." Madison wrote what he called a "Memorial and
Remonstrance," in which he appealed to the people against the evil tendency
of such a precedent, and which convinced people that Madison was right. A
bill was passed providing "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or
support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever * * * nor shall
suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men
shall be free to profess, and, by argument, maintain their opinions in
matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or
affect their civil capacities." The religious test to which many of the
states put their office-holders were gradually abandoned, and the final
separation of church and state in America came in 1833, when Massachusetts
discontinued the custom of paying preachers (emphasis added).(A Compilation
of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XX. New York: Bureau of
National Literature, Inc., 1917).
It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of
separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United
States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be
argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's. In
point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on
school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S.
history.
If this is a "Christian" nation, then why did Jefferson write what
he did to a group of Baptists? Shouldn't he instead of said that they had
something to worry about? If the concept of separating church and state were
a recent idea, then why did Jefferson himself use it, one of the founding
fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence?
I think it is a big surprise to the Jewish people who have been
living here for longer than my ancestors (who only got here in the middle of
the 19th century) to think that this is a "Christian" nation. If it were
"Christian" then there would be religious requirements to be a part of it
and to participate in the public arena. If this were a Christian nation,
then why are so few Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic Gallup
pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S. population claims to be "born again".
Interestingly, that's up considerably since the time of the nation's
founding, when barely ten percent, if that, claimed intense religious
affiliation.
I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the public
school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have failed
to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962
that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them over the
intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure out how
anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the state to
compose prayers and force them on people.
So why would you want to "restore" government sponsored religiosity?
Students and faculty and other employees are free to pray for themselves if
they want; that has never been a problem (admittedly, some examples of
overzealous administrators who didn't understand the issue, who tried to
stop individuals from exercising their religious beliefs, can doubtless be
found; but that is the exception, not the rule. That there are murderers is
not proof that murder is legal.).
As a Baptist, I frankly would be bothered by a Moslem or a Hindu
writing a prayer for my child. I no more want them imposing their religious
views on me and mine than they would want me to impose my Baptist beliefs on
them. And what about the agnostics and atheists? They no more wish to be
inundated by religious concepts in school than I would like to have my
children inundated by their beliefs (or lack thereof).
The attempt in the public arena is toward neutrality; certainly it
is a tough ideal to reach, and certainly there are a lot of mistakes made on
all sides. Certainly, too, in the past there has been a lot of inconsistency
in these ideals. But the ideal remains nevertheless.
The history of the U.S. has been one of lofty ideals rarely
achieved; our shame is that we so rarely reach what we proclaim: freedom,
equality, and the like. But our pride is that, unlike so many before, at
least we have ideals and we're trying, how often unsuccessfully, by fits and
starts, to reach them. Most of the political disagreements between the
parties is not so much over the goals (both Democrats and Republicans want a
free, prosperous, safe and happy society), but over the methods to reach
those goals. Demonizing the opposition is not reasonable, and both parties
are guilty of this (Democrats tend to turn Republicans into Fascists and
Republicans tend to turn Democrats into Communists; neither caricature is
accurate, appropriate or dignified).
The American Revolution, at its Foundation, was Unscriptural
At its foundation, our American revolution was unscriptural.
Therefore I have a hard time seeing how our government could have been
founded on Christian principles, when its very founding violated one:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority
instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to
governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend
those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)
No matter how you cut it, the founding fathers were revolting
against the King of England. It should be remembered that Peter wrote these
words while Israel was suffering under the domination of government far more
oppressive than England ever was. In fact, compared to current taxes, our
forefathers had nothing to complain about.
What Peter wrote seems perfectly clear and unambiguous; furthermore,
it is consistent with what Jesus said about his kingdom not being a part of
this world (John 18:23 and 36).
As a Christian, it would be very difficult to justify armed revolt
against any ruler. Passive resistance to injustice and evil, as embodied in
the concept of civil disobedience, however, does have Scriptural precedent
(as for instance in the case of the early Christians described in Acts
5:28-29:
"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said.
"Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make
us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than
men!" (see also Acts 4:18-20)
Civil disobedience means obeying a higher, moral law, but willingly
suffering the consequences of your actions and submitting to the authority
of those in power to arrest or even kill you for your disobedience. Peter
and the others were arrested, and many of them were ultimately martyred. But
they never participated in violent protest, nor did they resist those in
authority by violence.
Conclusion
Certainly many of the early immigrants to the New World came for
religious reasons - often to escape persecution. However, they were not
interested in religious freedom for anyone other than themselves, and often
turned around and persecuted others who had slightly different viewpoints.
As Pastor Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter to the Los
Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:
Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American
Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American
population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one
statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment
to Christianity!
It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States
was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That
there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the
nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other
religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that
is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak
of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically
Christian principles and doctrine.
We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our
prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling
to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation
that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back"
what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face
reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians
should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be
greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him,
thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would
always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor,
Los Angeles Times, August 1995)
The United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination a
Christian nation today, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to
be. The Religious right (or left) would do well to stop looking for the
Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.
.
|
|
| User: "RyanS2" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church/State in USA & The Religious Right |
27 Apr 2005 09:16:13 PM |
|
|
Good link Harry. You should check out Susan Jacoby's book
"Freethinkers" if you get the chance. It follows the Christian debate
throughout America and how the seperation of Church and state came
about. Since you're a liberal fellow, you'll also like some of the
history of the Religious Right's less-than-glorious moments. My
favorite is on the Civil Rights Movement, here's a few of my footnotes
on it:
An example of atheists helping for the Civil Rights movement was
Martin Luther King's best friend, Stanley Levison, who Luther used to
tease by telling him "You believe in God, Stan. You just don't know
it."
In a shout-out to the good old days of second century CE, Alabama's
Representative William Dickenson pointed out the real reason behind the
1965 voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, (on a speech on the
house floor, no less, on the second day of the march), was because the
people were simply:
"human flotsam, adventurers, beatniks, prostitutes, and similar
rabble hired to march at $10 a day, free room and board, and all the
sex they wanted. Free love among this group is not only condoned, it
is encouraged... Only the ultimate sex act with one of another color
can demonstrate that they have no prejudice." (15)
On the atheists who supported the Civil Rights Movement, Albert Jones,
a NAACP leader in Meridian, Mississippi, stated in a 1965 interview:
"The church is important to Mississippi Negroes. Even as we become
militant and fight for our rights, we still want to retain our
religion. Some of the white ones who come in here are not reverent and
religious, so they have a limited understanding of our people.. I want
the ballot for Negroes, better jobs, better education, and I don't
want Negroes looked down on any more. But the church is still our
almighty fortress, and I want it to stay that way." (18)
Schwerner and Goodman were two atheists from Jewish backgrounds, who
fought for civil rights.
Likewise, people who turned to religion during crises to help them
rarely found help in the mainstream churches. This was the story of
Viola Gregg Liuzzo, a third-nine year old woman shot to death for the
civil rights movement. J. Edgar Hoover, formerly in charge of
"anti-obscenity days", used the FBI to help discredit her during and
after her death. (See "From Selma to Sorrow" 1998, by Mary
Stanton).
The trial was worse than what happened while she was alive. She was
murdered with a 19 year old black male on their way to pick up other
Civil Rights Activists. The attorney for the defendant, a Klansman,
stated that:
"Acquittal is certain", predicted Matt Murphy, the attorney
representing the Klansmen charged with Liuzo's killing. "All I
need to use is the fact that Mrs. Liuzzo was in the car with a *****
man and she wore no underpants." (25) A toxicologist showed that
Liuzzo had not had sex recently, (which would be completely irrelevant
to the case, which was a MURDER), and Murphy stated at the trial:
"Integration breaks every moral law God wrote. Noah's son was Ham
[and he] committed adultery and his sons were the Hamites and God
banished them and they went to Africa and the only thing they ever
built was grass huts. No white woman can ever marry a descendant of
Ham." (26)
Matt Murphy was, incidentally, a very good Christian. To them, murder
is okay if people sleep together, which fits well with other Biblical
precidents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Lime harrylime at harrylime dot teevee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church/State in USA & The Religious Right |
27 Apr 2005 10:13:27 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C54B65.928E3320
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear RyanS2:
Please see inside text:
"RyanS2" <ryansoileau@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1114654573.871779.72190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Good link Harry. You should check out Susan Jacoby's book
"Freethinkers" if you get the chance.=20
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.
It follows the Christian debate
throughout America and how the seperation of Church and state came
about. Since you're a liberal fellow, you'll also like some of the
history of the Religious Right's less-than-glorious moments. My
favorite is on the Civil Rights Movement, here's a few of my footnotes
on it:
=20
An example of atheists helping for the Civil Rights movement was
Martin Luther King's best friend, Stanley Levison, who Luther used to
tease by telling him "You believe in God, Stan. You just don't know
it."
=20
In a shout-out to the good old days of second century CE, Alabama's
Representative William Dickenson pointed out the real reason behind =
the
1965 voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, (on a speech on the
house floor, no less, on the second day of the march), was because the
people were simply:
=20
"human flotsam, adventurers, beatniks, prostitutes, and similar
rabble hired to march at $10 a day, free room and board, and all the
sex they wanted. Free love among this group is not only condoned, it
is encouraged... Only the ultimate sex act with one of another color
can demonstrate that they have no prejudice." (15)
Too bad they don't have these type of marches anymore. Free love and =
$10-a-day. Whoowee!
=20
On the atheists who supported the Civil Rights Movement, Albert Jones,
a NAACP leader in Meridian, Mississippi, stated in a 1965 interview:
=20
"The church is important to Mississippi Negroes. Even as we become
militant and fight for our rights, we still want to retain our
religion. Some of the white ones who come in here are not reverent =
and
religious, so they have a limited understanding of our people.. I want
the ballot for Negroes, better jobs, better education, and I don't
want Negroes looked down on any more. But the church is still our
almighty fortress, and I want it to stay that way." (18)
=20
Schwerner and Goodman were two atheists from Jewish backgrounds, who
fought for civil rights.
Says a lot for Atheists. =20
=20
Likewise, people who turned to religion during crises to help them
rarely found help in the mainstream churches. This was the story of
Viola Gregg Liuzzo, a third-nine year old woman shot to death for the
civil rights movement. J. Edgar Hoover, formerly in charge of
"anti-obscenity days", used the FBI to help discredit her during and
after her death. (See "From Selma to Sorrow" 1998, by Mary
Stanton).
=20
The trial was worse than what happened while she was alive. She was
murdered with a 19 year old black male on their way to pick up other
Civil Rights Activists. The attorney for the defendant, a Klansman,
stated that:
=20
"Acquittal is certain", predicted Matt Murphy, the attorney
representing the Klansmen charged with Liuzo's killing. "All I
need to use is the fact that Mrs. Liuzzo was in the car with a *****
man and she wore no underpants." (25) A toxicologist showed that
Liuzzo had not had sex recently, (which would be completely irrelevant
to the case, which was a MURDER), and Murphy stated at the trial:
"Integration breaks every moral law God wrote. Noah's son was Ham
[and he] committed adultery and his sons were the Hamites and God
banished them and they went to Africa and the only thing they ever
built was grass huts. No white woman can ever marry a descendant of
Ham." (26)
=20
Matt Murphy was, incidentally, a very good Christian. To them, murder
is okay if people sleep together, which fits well with other Biblical
precidents.
I hate to sound like Tani, but I did see a pretty interesting =
documentary on the History Channel the other evening that claimed that =
the early Christians were the ones that burned Rome, not Nero or his =
cronies. Religious hypocrites have always amused me. Thanks for the =
info.
Regards,
Harry Lime
www.harrylime.biz
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C54B65.928E3320
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear RyanS2:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Please see inside text:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"RyanS2" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:ryansoileau@yahoo.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>ryansoileau@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:1114654573.871779.72190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:1114654573.871779.72190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com</FONT>=
</A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Good link Harry. You should =
check out=20
Susan Jacoby's book<BR>> "Freethinkers" if you get the=20
chance. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check =
it=20
out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> It follows the Christian =
debate<BR>>=20
throughout America and how the seperation of Church and state =
came<BR>>=20
about. Since you're a liberal fellow, you'll also like some of =
the<BR>>=20
history of the Religious Right's less-than-glorious moments. =
My<BR>>=20
favorite is on the Civil Rights Movement, here's a few of my =
footnotes<BR>>=20
on it:<BR>> <BR>> An example of atheists helping for the Civil =
Rights=20
movement was<BR>> Martin Luther King's best friend, Stanley =
Levison,=20
who Luther used to<BR>> tease by telling him "You believe in God, =
Stan. You=20
just don't know<BR>> it."<BR>> <BR>> In a shout-out to the good =
old=20
days of second century CE, Alabama's<BR>> Representative William =
Dickenson=20
pointed out the real reason behind the<BR>> 1965 voting rights march =
from=20
Selma to Montgomery, (on a speech on the<BR>> house floor, no less, =
on the=20
second day of the march), was because the<BR>> people were =
simply:<BR>>=20
<BR>> "human flotsam, adventurers, beatniks, prostitutes, and =
similar<BR>>=20
rabble hired to march at $10 a day, free room and board, and all =
the<BR>> sex=20
they wanted. Free love among this group is not only condoned, =
it<BR>>=20
is encouraged... Only the ultimate sex act with one of another=20
color<BR>> can demonstrate that they have no prejudice." =
(15)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Too bad they don't have these type of =
marches=20
anymore. Free love <EM>and</EM> $10-a-day. Whoowee!</FONT></DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>> <BR>> On the atheists who supported the Civil Rights =
Movement,=20
Albert Jones,<BR>> a NAACP leader in Meridian, Mississippi, stated in =
a 1965=20
interview:<BR>> <BR>> "The church is important to Mississippi=20
Negroes. Even as we become<BR>> militant and fight for our =
rights, we=20
still want to retain our<BR>> religion. Some of the white ones =
who come=20
in here are not reverent and<BR>> religious, so they have a limited=20
understanding of our people.. I want<BR>> the ballot for Negroes, =
better=20
jobs, better education, and I don't<BR>> want Negroes looked down on =
any=20
more. But the church is still our<BR>> almighty fortress, and I =
want it=20
to stay that way." (18)<BR>> <BR>> Schwerner and Goodman were two =
atheists=20
from Jewish backgrounds, who<BR>> fought for civil rights.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Says a lot for Atheists. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> <BR>> Likewise, people who turned to religion during =
crises to=20
help them<BR>> rarely found help in the mainstream churches. =
This was=20
the story of<BR>> Viola Gregg Liuzzo, a third-nine year old woman =
shot to=20
death for the<BR>> civil rights movement. J. Edgar Hoover, =
formerly in=20
charge of<BR>> "anti-obscenity days", used the FBI to help discredit =
her=20
during and<BR>> after her death. (See "From Selma to Sorrow" =
1998, by=20
Mary<BR>> Stanton).<BR>> <BR>> The trial was worse than what =
happened=20
while she was alive. She was<BR>> murdered with a 19 year old =
black=20
male on their way to pick up other<BR>> Civil Rights Activists. =
The=20
attorney for the defendant, a Klansman,<BR>> stated that:<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
"Acquittal is certain", predicted Matt Murphy, the attorney<BR>> =
representing=20
the Klansmen charged with Liuzo's killing. "All I<BR>> need to =
use is=20
the fact that Mrs. Liuzzo was in the car with a *****<BR>> man and =
she wore=20
no underpants." (25) A toxicologist showed that<BR>> Liuzzo had not =
had sex=20
recently, (which would be completely irrelevant<BR>> to the case, =
which was a=20
MURDER), and Murphy stated at the trial:<BR>> "Integration breaks =
every moral=20
law God wrote. Noah's son was Ham<BR>> [and he] committed =
adultery and=20
his sons were the Hamites and God<BR>> banished them and they went to =
Africa=20
and the only thing they ever<BR>> built was grass huts. No =
white woman=20
can ever marry a descendant of<BR>> Ham." (26)<BR>> <BR>> =
Matt=20
Murphy was, incidentally, a very good Christian. To them, =
murder<BR>>=20
is okay if people sleep together, which fits well with other =
Biblical<BR>>=20
precidents.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hate to sound like Tani, but I did see a pretty interesting =
documentary=20
on the History Channel the other evening that claimed that the =
early=20
Christians were the ones that burned Rome, not Nero or his cronies. =
Religious=20
hypocrites have always amused me. Thanks for the info.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Harry Lime</DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://www.harrylime.biz">www.harrylime.biz</A></FONT></DIV></BOD=
Y></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C54B65.928E3320--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
