THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Saturday, April 9, 2011

“PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT GOD BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION!” [Part One Of Two]

.
While you may not find this reflected in the quality of the writing, the following 2-part blog installment was actually three years in the making.

On April 21st of 2008, I wrote and posted a humorous piece on my Amazon.com blog titled EDJUCATION-R-US: "We B Edjucatin' U." [Issue #1: Polatics & Soshial Studies] . In that blog bit, I held up for derision the mythical concept of “Separation Of Church And State”. This caught the attention of a very dear friend of mine whom I call “The Flying Aardvark”.

Flyin’ Aard respected the amount of time and effort I had put into studying the United States Constitution over the years, and so she asked me to elaborate on my 'anti-Separation' position. In a private Email conversation, she and I agreed that my responses to her questions and challenges would probably make for an informative blog bit, and she gave me permission to post our exchanges on my Amazon.com blog.

Unfortunately, I had not quite finished my response to the Flyin’ Aard's initial Email when on April 28, 2008, Amazon.com (aka BigBitch.com) suddenly and without warning pulled the plug on my blog and denied me the future ability to post comments on their website. (The full [i.e., "long"], true story about that incident can be found HERE.)

Nevertheless, I sent my answers to Flyin’ Aard and she later replied with a couple more questions and respectful rebuttals to some of the points I had raised. It had always been my intention to respond to her reply and then post the various exchanges here on my “new” (but since grown “old” and soon to be abandoned) blog. For a variety of reasons, none of them worth explaining in detail, it wasn’t until now – 3 years after our first exchange of ideas about this issue – that I finally completed my response to Aard’s old reply.

So, this 2-part blog bit was indeed three years in the making. If nothing else, it shows that people can discuss controversial issues without getting emotional and losing respect for one another.

So here goes . . .
“PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT GOD BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION” [Part 1 Of 2]:

Those who will not be governed by God
will be ruled by tyrants.
~ William Penn























2008, April:
HOWDY, FLYIN’ AARDVARK  ~
Well, I’ve got my “Ron Paul For President” baseball cap on, and that All-American Pop group, Da Beach Boys, are singing in the background, and I’m now ready to tape the next episode of my Emmy award-winning program, ‘CONSTITUTION YAK WITH STEPHEN T. MCCARTHY’.



















>> . . . Doesn't the language in Article VII (...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust...) and the language in Amendment 1 (...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) comprise what is commonly thought to be the Constitutional Principle behind the argument for the Separation of Church and State?

Heck if I know. Next question!...

Ha! Alright, let’s look at the first part of that: The language in Article VI; Clause 3 (“...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust”)

First of all, there exists a body of historical evidence to advance the idea that what our Founding Dads really intended with this ban was to prevent any one particular Christian denomination from running roughshod over the others. They wished to avoid the sort of monopoly over political life that they had endured with Great Britain and the entrenched position of the Church Of England.

Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School explains it this way: “In the ratification debates, the defenders of the Constitution put forward two reasons for the religious test ban. First, various Christian sects feared that, if any test were permitted, one might be designed to their disadvantage. No single sect could hope to dominate national councils. But any sect could imagine itself the victim of a combination of the others. Oliver Ellsworth noted that if a religious oath ‘were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office…’ … The limitation to federal officeholders was mooted by the Supreme Court in the 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins. Relying upon the First Amendment religion clauses, the Court struck down religious tests for ANY public office in the United States.” [emphasis added]

But for the sake of this discussion, let’s take the entire concept of “Christian denomination domination” off the table. So then, what happens if we address this clause according to its most basic, straightforward apparent wording?

Even then, we must concede that banning a religious test for a federal officeholder, and removing every single act or symbol with religious implication from the public sphere (even those that fall within federal jurisdiction), are two specifically different questions. It does not NECESSARILY follow that just because a religious test cannot be required of a person seeking a federal office, that “a wall of separation between church and state” exists which prevents the federal government collectively from encouraging ANY SORT OF religious ideas or activities. These are two separate questions, and I think few individuals (even the most ardent opponents of our newly “secularized society”) would argue against the advisability of a religious test ban for federal employment, while many people of faith (myself included) are terribly disturbed by the concept of completely removing every shred of religion from public life; an idea which has been advanced in the United States beginning with the Court’s “Everson v. Board Of Education” decision in 1947.

>> . . . The language in Amendment 1 (“...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...)

OK, let’s examine the far more controversial First Amendment and its severly twisted modern interpretation (with the social damage and erosion of Constitutionally protected rights which have followed it).

The first and foremost important thing to remember about the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) is that it was intended as a restriction against the national (i.e., Federal) government, and was never meant to impact the states’ rights in self-determination when it came to the issues it addressed. This position regarding the Bill of Rights is easily and soundly defended. It is historically accurate. It should be noted that it is doubtful that the Constitution would have been ratified in the first place had promises not been made to the Anti-Federalists that a Bill of Rights would quickly be added to the document if it was passed ‘as is’ at that time. Why did the Anti-Federalists so vociferously insist on a Bill of Rights? Because they rightly suspected that the national government would eventually encroach on those states’ rights without it (even though the Federalists argued that the Constitution, as written, already protected the states in those areas).

As Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman writes: “[T]he plain historical fact [is] that the Bill of Rights was ratified to limit the powers of the federal government ALONE.”

As with Article VI; Clause 3, it might be reasonably argued that the real intent of the First Amendment was to prevent any one Christian denomination from gaining a legal upperhand. As Professor of Law at the Paul M. Herbert Law Center, John Baker, writes: “Although these various pieces of historical evidence support the proposition that the Establishment of Religion Clause merely requires ‘no preference between denominations,’ others criticize that view on originalist grounds.” Therefore, as we did with Article VI; Clause 3, let’s just take this argument off the table and examine the First Amendment solely on it’s most essential and clear meaning:

David Barton, in his outstanding book “ORIGINAL INTENT: The Courts, The Constitution, And Religion” writes: “George Washington, in his Inaugural Address, urged Congress to consider how the Constitution might be amended. Congess did so, and the result was twelve proposed amendments specifying exactly what the FEDERAL government, and ONLY the federal government, could not do. Of those twelve amendments, ten – the Bill of Rights – were ratified by the States to preserve State autonomy over the issues listed in those amendments.”

[As a side note: In his otherwise pretty well-written book exposing the dark side of Mormonism, Ed Decker wrote: "Giving its official approval to the Church’s trampling on human rights, in 1975 the Utah Supreme Court with its Mormon majority handed down a surprising decision, that, as summarized by the Denver Post: 'The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, -- did not apply in Utah but was only a limitation on the federal government'.” For a while, I was very much tempted to write a letter to Decker explaining that this is an entirely correct interpretation of the First Amendment, but alas, there is only so much time in a day, and I found other arenas in which to spend my time instead.]

According to this view of the Bill of Rights, am I saying then that despite the Second Amendment, a state’s legislature could conceivably deny its citizens the right to bear arms? Yep, that’s exactly what I am saying. And of course, if this legislation transgresses the majority opinion of the people of said state, they could counter that by removing those officials from office and reversing the law. In essence, this is how the system is really supposed to work.

What has happened is that usurpers seeking to deny the states their autonomy and wishing to consolidate power in the Federal government have used a variety of methods to disallow the states their right to self-determination, most notably by the deliberate misinterpreting of the Constitution through the courts. A key element in this machination has been the misapplying of the 14th Amendment against the states. This has had the effect of reversing the original purpose of the Bill of Rights and using the states’ own protections from the Federal government against the states themselves. This is a complex subject and would require another Email this size to fully explain, but the small book “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS” by the late Congressman Lawrence McDonald does an excellent job of it, as does David Barton’s aforementioned book.

Kevin Gutzman writes: “With the thin reed of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as its support, the Court undertook to redefine American church-state relations… The jumping-off point was a determined (and ongoing) attempt to secularize American society, thus bringing more of it under the Court’s own purview and that of the federal government.”

[*My Pal, a detailed study into this deliberate attempt to remove God from American society will lead right into the laps of men and women who share the same mind-set as those who would impose an illegal income tax and illegal economy on individuals and support the micromanaging of the affairs of the American people as revealed in the DVD “America: Freedom To Fascism”. You recall that disturbing documentary? Well, this is just one facet of that same ongoing assault against an American’s constitutionally protected liberties. It’s all The Usual Suspects, Pal. God must be removed in order for government (a.k.a., Orwell’s “Big Brother”) to step in as the citizen’s politically correct deity. This entire concept is clearly found in the writings of Karl Marx and other notable socialists.]

Samuel Adams said that the Bill of Rights was created because the people wished “to see a line drawn as clearly as may be between the federal powers vested in Congress and distinct sovereignty of the several States upon which the private and personal rights of the citizens depend. Without such distinction there will be danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated government over all the States.” Hmmm… sounds just like what we have in 2008, doesn’t it?

How about Thomas Jefferson (the very originator of the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state”), does he agree with this interpretation of the First Amendment? He said: “Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the general [federal] government. It must then rest with the States.”

Let’s go back to John Baker’s writing on this subject. He says “As another alternative to separationism, some Justices assert that the Establishment of Religion Clause was originally meant only to prohibit the government from coercing individuals to practice a religion or support it. … The ‘no coercion’ principle likewise is consistent with the long line of religious expressions by government, running from the Founding period to the present; government may express religious sentiments as long as it does not coerce anyone to agree with such expressions or participate in such ceremonies.”

But… [continuing to quote John Baker] “As a result of the incorporation of the Religion Clause into the 14th Amendment, almost all of the federal cases compelling “separation of church and state” have been applied against state laws. The contradictory decisions of the Supreme Court on the Establishment of Religion Clause render the area inchoate if not incoherent. A ‘moment of silence for meditation and prayer’ in school is contrary to the Constitution (only if the motive is religious), … but a paid chaplain in Congress or state legislatures is not, … Religious schools may not receive funds for maintenance expenses, … but places of worship can enjoy a tax exemption, … Prayers at high school football games are invalid, … but the bailiff’s call, ‘God Save this Honorable Court,’ may be heard within the chambers of the Supreme Court.”

Attempting to decide whether or not an action related to religion is Constitutionally valid according to our Founding Fathers’ view is actually ridiculously simple. You ask two questions and if the answer to both of them is “Yes”, then the proposed activity is Constitutionally invalid, but if both answers are “No” then our Founding Fathers would have considered it within the Constitution’s articulated limits. Let’s take the most unlikely of all scenarios and say that the mayors of San Francisco and Boston decided to declare April 6th “Jesus Christ Day” in their cities. (Crazy idea, isn’t it?) In determining whether these mayors could legally (i.e., Constitutionally) do this, you ask: #1) Is the mayor “Congress”, and #2) is declaring April 6th to be ‘Jesus Christ Day’ the establishment of a “law”? Since in both cases the answer is “No”, then this action is fully within the obvious meaning of the First Amendment.

When the Supreme Court’s bailiff calls out “God Save this Honorable Court” - although he may be speaking a falsehood in calling the court “honorable” - since neither the bailiff nor the Court is “Congress” and since urging God to Save the Court is not the establishment of any sort of “law”, this is clearly a Constitutionally valid activity.

Where then does the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” come from? It was written in a private letter by President Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in January, 1802. In part, Jefferson sought to assure them that their denomination could not suffer as a result of the federal government’s preference for another, since the Constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion.

But by this phrase (which of course does not appear in any of America’s founding documents), did Jefferson mean to imply that the federal government could not have any hand in religion whatsoever? Hardly! If he did, then the guy had multiple personalities because consider the fact that NOT LONG AFTERWARDS, as President of the United States, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, a part of which included the promise that the United States would give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a Christian priest for their tribe as well as three hundred dollars to assist the tribe in the building of a church. He later made two similar treaties with the Wyandotte and Cherokee Indians in 1806 and 1807, which included measures “for… promoting Christianity.” Pretty strange behavior for a man who supposedly believed that “a wall of separation between church and state” meant that the federal government could play no part at all in any religious endeavors, eh?

How far have we come when now the federal courts claim that even the states themselves have no right to promote anything with any religious overtones? Clearly something has changed, and that “something” is the way some people choose to reinterpret the meaning of our Founding Fathers.

Was Jefferson alone in his willingness to allow for government and Christianity to come together? I think NOT! Fisher Ames, who was primarily responsible for the very wording of the 1st Amendment stated that he believed that The Bible should be used extensively in the schools as a textbook. The Founding Father who was the first to call for free national public schools felt the same way – Benjamin Rush said: “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.”

The vast majority of America’s Founding Fathers were members of orthodox Christian churches, and they never intended that Christianity should be removed from the public square. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the the government of any other.” Some guy named George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars. … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Jay was one of the three men most responsible for the U.S. Constitution (see “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS”) and the very first Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Obviously, Article VI of the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment, prevents the federal government from imposing nothing but Christians on the country in all of the various positions of influence and power, but clearly Jay was suggesting that these are the people whom he felt should be most often elected by the people.

I could go on and on and on with quote after quote from our Founding Fathers which unquestionably indicated that they considered this to be a Christian nation and that Christianity and its principles were always expected to play a part in our development. But since the 1947 Everson verdict, the Supreme Court and various other organizations and individuals have systematically sought to alter the vision of our Founders and keep the American people and their government secularized as much as possible.

>> . . . A tidy portion of lawyers specializing in constitutional law spend their entire careers arguing the interpretation of this language and how it means exactly that.

Quite true, but let us remember that just the existence of something does not necessarily validate its foundational beliefs. Neither of us would concede that the views of the Ku Klux Klan have any merit despite the fact that the group exists and has existed for a very long time. I would argue that the same applies to many so-called “Constitutional lawyers.”

Here’s how Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman puts it: “Now, however, American law students are almost universally subjected to the case method. Their texts are collections of judicial opinions, or in a few cases of statutes, with absolutely no historical context. One prominent legal academic at a leading law school responded to my friend’s query why he had not assigned readings from THE FEDERALIST to his introductory class in constitutional law by saying that THE FEDERALIST was ‘irrelevant’ to the subject of ‘constitutional law’ – and he was right. In short, if the judges make a particular false assertion about the Constitution in numerous cases, students reading those opinions have no way of recognizing that assertion’s falsity. They are provided no tools for analyzing judge’s claims – only with scads of the opinions incorporating those claims. This is one reason why legal training should not be confused with an education.”

>> . . . I always believed that the idea of separating these was actually a good idea as living in a theocracy promotes religious persecution and bullying, and frankly we have enough of that already. I was just wondering what your take on this was...

While some wicked things have indeed been perpetrated in the name of Christianity in the last 2000 years of our history, if one compares the atrocities of atheistic/secular societies to those committed by self-proclaimed “Christian” societies, they will find that the Christian misdeeds are not even a pimple on the butt of secular/atheistic evils. Just in recent times, compare the murder rates between Christian nations with those of the irreligious – think Soviet Union and Communist China. And then ask yourself, would you really feel safer and believe that your individual rights would be better protected in a Communist nation as opposed to, say 1930 America? And as the U.S.A. becomes increasingly secularized by our Courts, etc., is it not clear that our morals have slipped to all-time lows? Were kids bringing guns to school and killing their classmates back when The Bible and prayer were still allowed within 500 feet of a public school?

Russia, North Korea, China and many other nations show us very explicitly what we can expect when all religion (especially Christianity) is ousted from the public square, when there is installed “a wall of separation between church and state.” Where do you think you are really likely to experience more persecution and bullying, in a country where the God of Jesus is banned (e.g., Stalin’s Russia) or in a country where the God of Jesus is considered the foundation of the nation (e.g., Washington’s America)? Theocracy itself can be a bad thing, but it must be asked “Whose religion?” I do not consider myself a “Christian”, but I cannot deny that my country was established by Christians and as a Christian nation, and it was the principles of Christ that were expected to keep us progressing and prospering. If you are the sort who likes statistics, here are a couple of web pages that get it right:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

In closing, let me add this final observation:
The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. If “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are not rights given by God to the people of our nation, then they are “privileges” granted by the State and therefore revocable by the State, right? But if they ARE “rights” given by God, then it’s both a silly and untenable position if we later claim that there is a wall of separation between church and state and that our government is wholly secular, correct?

Unfortunately for those who would like to pretend that our Constitutional form of government is entirely divorced from religion, our Founding Fathers clearly stated in their very declaration of independence from England that in fact our collective rights are rooted in religious belief and that we claimed this belief as justification for separating from Britain.

Either we are a religious nation with our very government founded upon Divine rights that have been bestowed upon us by our Creator, or else we had no business rebelling against the King of England in the first place and the reasons we gave for our rebellion were based on fraud. Are we to accept the idea that in 1776 we had a “Divine” right to rebel against the King, but 14 years later (when the 1st Amendment was adopted), there was no place in our government for religious expression? Do we allow God in our government and proclaim His gifts to us in our official documents ONLY when it is politically expedient? And if our government is truly supposed to have a wall built up between it and all religious expression, maybe we’d better take our original documents and draw a line through the four references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in that part at the end of the Constitution where our Founders signed it: “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…”

For a people to claim that their God-given rights have been trampled and thus they are justified in separating from their parent country, but then to turn right around after the independence has been achieved and declare that their government is purely secular and must remain entirely divorced from all religious expression reduces us to a “tail wagging the dog” scenario, if you ask me.

AMERICA! . . .
“Take heed, lest you forget the Lord your God, in not keeping His commandments and His judgments and His statutes . . . Lest when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses, and dwell in them . . . Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of . . . the house of bondage . . . And you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth’ . . . And if you do forget the Lord your God, and walk after other gods and serve them and worship them, I have testified against you this day that you shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyed before you, so shall you perish if you are not obedient to the voice of the Lord your God.”
~ Deuteronomy 8:11-20

Pal, here are a few good books I can recommend to you for further study:

ORIGINAL INTENT by Barton
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION by Gutzman
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS by McDonald
THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION by Meese, etc.
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Rossiter
THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DEBATES by Ketcham
THE ESSENTIAL ANTIFEDERALIST by Allen & Lloyd

And in case you’d like a quick study course, here’s a link to David Barton’s website which also explores the subject of religion and government.

I hope this answered some questions satisfactorily for ya, AardPal.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Link:
“PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT GOD BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION!” [Part 2 Of 2]

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

28 comments:

  1. 1.

    I appreciate you laying out your views--and hope you won't mind a lengthy response, presented in several bite sizes.

    The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the principle derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion.

    Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    You speak at length about the First Amendment constraining only the federal government--as if that were doubted or disputed. Then, with no explanation (and offering instead references to books), you disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. As the First Amendment did not come with a handy glossary of terms explaining exactly what rights are encompassed within those terms, the Court naturally and reasonably looked to the Bill of Rights, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from government established religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29 While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend that Amendment's constraints to state and local governments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2.

    You make much of the First Amendment's references to "Congress" and "law." By your literal reading, are we to suppose the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of one or more religions? Nonsense. First, Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President's veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are "made" by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. By the literal reading you suggest, it would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion--a manifestly silly result. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.

    The notion that the First Amendment should only prevent government from supporting one sect over another does not square with its language or evidence of the founders' intent. First, note no mention in the text of "denomination," "sect," or the like. Second, note that the word "religion" is uttered once--setting the scope of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If the text is read so that the term "religion" means only a "national denomination" or the like (thus limiting the scope of the establishment clause as you suppose), violence is done to the free expression clause, which then would merely constrain Congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise "thereof"--i.e., a national denomination. Silly.

    While the founders were, no doubt, confronted with the need to address competition and conflict between a variety of sects (largely but not exclusively Christian) and some (but hardly all) founders were motivated by that perceived need to support separation of church and state, it is a non sequitur to suppose therefore that they intended merely to stop the government from favoring one "sect" (however defined), but leave it free to favor some (also undefined) grouping of sects (e.g., "generic" Christianity or perhaps monotheism, or theism, or deism, or some such).

    Any such interpretation, moreover, would raise so many problems that I tire at the thought of listing them. For instance, where and how would one distinguish sects or groups of sects? Christianity comprises dozens or even hundreds of sects depending on how one draws the lines. And why stop with Christianity since there are other monotheistic religions? Would it be okay for the government to support Islam as long as it refrained from choosing the Sunni or Shiite sect? And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism "belongs" in Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3.

    You make much of the religious views of various founders. While those views are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted above. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

    While some, like you, draw meaning from the reference to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is baseless. Apart from the fact that these references could mean any number of things (some at odds with the Christian idea of God), there simply is no "legal" connection or effect between the two documents. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence, nor did it found a government. The colonists issued the Declaration not to effect their independence, but rather to explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies; nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies could choose whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take it as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose--or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished--or, as they ultimately chose, a secular government founded on the power of the people (not a deity).

    Also, when discussing separation of church and state, it is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4.

    David Barton, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by Chris Rodda's meticulous analysis, zealotry more than fact shapes his work, which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006). She presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case.

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

    ReplyDelete
  5. "First of all, there exists a body of historical evidence to advance the idea that what our Founding Dads really intended with this ban was to prevent any one particular Christian denomination from running roughshod over the others."

    Yep. Many states still had a test for office whereby they had to avow and affirm the basic tenets of Christianity (the Nicene Creed pretty much) and that was NOT considered a "religious test." As you say, it was to prevent sects and denominations taking over. Aw heck, one page of David Barton's Wallbuilders (he was the keynote speaker at a curriculum fair I attended once...and WOW was he awesome) could settle this matter.

    Reading on I see you took this off the table. You see what I did? I didn't leave it off the table. I went in the other direction.

    As you were - that's just a key point to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phew - bet you got through all of Pet Sounds writing all this up!

    Sirrah, your writing is derivative, jingositic (sic) and tedious! Oh, wait, no it isn't; it's highly informed, informative, interesting and thorough. Glad to see you got a Barton quote in there; the left really hates him and does everything in their power to discredit him, but they can't do it.

    By the way, that nasty comment to your Amazon blog sounds exactly like Pandagon's owner, Marcotte - she peppers every sentence liberally with f-bombs (much more than I do if you can believe it) and insists that anyone who is religious, creationist, conservative, libertarian or non-feminist is simply intellectually dishonest. Um, no, we're really not. Not even close. We can't afford to be, now can we? I've said it before and I'll likely say it again; this ain't "Inherit the Wind". A lot of new sh** has come to light and we've all had to stay on our collective toes since then.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 1:

    DOUG ~
    You ain’t callin’ Bob Dylan a liar when he sings “In the home of the brave / Jefferson’s turning over in his grave”, are ya?

    >> . . . David Barton, by the way, should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by Chris Rodda's meticulous analysis, zealotry more than fact shapes his work

    Speaking of that “z”-word, I must say that you also appear to be engaged in a zealous crusade. I say this because this blog of mine is virtually unknown outside of my very small circle of friends and a few acquaintances via my association with Arlee Bird and his ‘Tossing It Out’ blog.

    It is extremely rare that I receive a comment from outside of this aforementioned sphere, and yet your lengthy, 4-part comment, was submitted to my blog just 24 hours after this installment was posted. That’s a quick response time, especially for someone who doesn’t know me and hasn’t been following my blog. Heck, you beat Anniee’s comment submission by two and a half days, and she’s a friend of mine!

    My best guess to explain your rapid response is that you might spend a fair chunk of time Googling “David Barton” and “Original Intent” and then initiating debates with those who praise his work. Would I find comments like these you’ve submitted here all over the Internet if I Googled those words too and searched the sites where they appear?

    According to your profile page, you’re a lawyer engaged in the law industry. Now, Brother, I sure as hell am NOT going to call you a liar, because I don’t know you, and you may be as honest as I am, but let me just go on record as saying that I find it “surprising” that a lawyer would have the time and inclination to submit lengthy multi-part comments to a nobody like me. I feel honored, Bro – thank you! (If you are indeed a lawyer, naturally, your position on this and your willingness to spend so much time trying to dispute mine leads me to wonder if you might be a member of the National Lawyers Guild. Not an accusation, but just a thought that occurred to me.)

    As for Chris and her book: I was already aware of both. In fact, I once attempted to check her book out at the library but found it was unavailable in the entire Phoenix library system. Surprising since the libraries are usually very eager to carry books authored by people on the Left. I wouldn’t even consider lining her purse with my own hard-earned dollars, so buying her book new is out of the question. I did find a used copy at a local bookstore recently, but $20. for a very “used” book was too steep a price. Someday I will locate an inexpensive used copy and read it.

    However, approximately a year ago, I did visit her website and read a little of what she had posted. In a couple of instances, she made what appeared to be valid although minor statements which, if they fact-checked out alright, would have proven her point in that fairly insignificant area. However, I also noted a few statements that I instantly recognized and knew to be twisted misinterpretations without even needing to pull any reference materials from my shelves to verify it. So, I’m afraid she was immediately beginning to lose credibility at the same rate she was garnering it. I can’t recall any specifics because, as I said, this was about a year ago. I would still be willing to read her book, but it will have to be on my terms and at my price.

    At any rate, my position sure doesn’t stand or fall with David Barton. My beliefs are always a result of multiple sources in conjunction with my own God-given ability to reason. Barton is far from being alone in the bulk of his beliefs.

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 2:

    >> . . . He [Madison] made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion.

    As you must know, Madison was not always consistent in his own positions. Furthermore, while he did take the position that the Constitution forbade the national government from establishing a religion by law, he also conceded that it did not prevent the individual states from establishing a religion, for some states (such as Connecticut) did have established churches at the time – as my friend Anniee noted below.

    >> . . . You speak at length about the First Amendment constraining only the federal government--as if that were doubted or disputed.

    It is frequently doubted and disputed.

    >> . . . Then, with no explanation (and offering instead references to books), you disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship.

    My friend, this is a blog, NOT a book. Of course I wasn’t going to go into detail on every single point. Hell, it took me three years just to work up the inspiration to put this 2-part overview together. (But it took you only 24 hours to reply to it.) The point of these blog bits is to provide the reader with an understanding of my basic view, and to also point him or her in the direction where they can begin to conduct further study on their own.

    The 14th Amendment, while approved with good intentions (to ensure the recently freed Blacks were not denied their essential rights by racists) unfortunately had the unintended effect of providing the statists with the very weapon by which the Bill of Rights could be turned against the states themselves, as opposed to being the very protection AGAINST Federal encroachment that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to be. Sadly, the 14th Amendment has become a tyrant’s, a Federal bureaucrat’s, a ‘New World Order’ proponent’s dream come true.

    As I wrote: “This is a complex subject and would require another Email this size to fully explain, but the small book ‘WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS’ by the late Congressman Lawrence McDonald does an excellent job of it…”

    I once read an essay in which Edwin Vieira, Jr. did an admirable job of laying out his argument why the states themselves could not rob the citizens of their Second Amendment rights. But this he tied into the concept of the militias being an essential safeguard for the country as a whole. But it takes a special kind of genius to make an argument like that and it would be quite a trick to see it logically attempted with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    >> . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

    Oh no! No! Please don’t bring Wikipedia into this! I have found Wikipedia to be useful for only two things: verifying dates and the spelling of names. When you have an article where anyone can add anything to it provided they can offer a published cite for it (not exactly a rigorous test), you have something most unreliable. Call me “Old School” but I still believe in reading well researched books written by scholars. Wikipedia and YouTube is for entertainment purposes only.

    >> . . . You make much of the First Amendment's references to "Congress" and "law." By your literal reading, are we to suppose the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of one or more religions? Nonsense.

    Continued Below…

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 3:

    Nonsense is right! Of course not. It is the “Legislative” branch (Congress) that is supposed to be creating legislation. That is not the job of the Executive branch (the President). Congress is supposed to have the first and last say when it comes to the establishment of laws. Although, We The People fell asleep at the switch and allowed our presidents to become emperors who do whatever they damn well please. As you know, the form of government we have today hardly resembles the one our Founders established for us.

    Yes, the meaning of the First Amendment really is as simple as I stated. It is those whose purpose is to centralize power in order to gain greater control over We The People who torture the wording of everything until they have (as Jefferson warned us against) “squeezed out of the text, or invented against it” the meanings they prefer. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant but this still isn’t rocket science:

    On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
    ~ Thomas Jefferson


    >> . . . And even if one wished to stop with Christianity, how does one draw the line around that? For instance, some question whether Mormonism "belongs" in Christianity.

    Ha! Well, Bro, seeing as how Mormonism wasn’t established until 1830, I think we can discard that one, safely assuming that our Founding Fathers hadn’t yet heard of it.

    Secondly, you’re going on and on about a topic I specifically took off the table expressly to avoid this sort of ad nauseam discussion. [Remember I wrote: But for the sake of this discussion, let’s take the entire concept of “Christian denomination domination” off the table.] I thought I had nipped this part of the discussion in the bud, Bud.

    > . . . While some, like you, draw meaning from the reference to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is baseless.

    That is entirely illogical! I hope you’ll understand and not think ill of me if, rather than side with you and Chris, I side with the extraordinarly incisive reasoning capacity of Mr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., as exhibited in his essay ‘Bedrock Of The Constitution’. I find his thesis purely logical and unassailable. It’s certainly not difficult to believe that this lawyer has won his share of cases in the United States Supreme Court. But, Doug, you’re free to believe as you will.

    >> . . . The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government.

    Buddy, I’m not even going to go there; I just ain’t got the time to discuss both religion AND so-called “science”!

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 4:

    Listen, we could go ‘round and ‘round and ‘round again, until the Second Coming of Christ, and we’re still going to find each other standing in the very same places where we started.

    Doug, I didn’t mind letting you speak your piece here because I don’t believe in censorship of ideas unless someone is resorting to ad hominem arguments or nasty epithets. You have avoided those tactics so often encountered from people of The Left, and I appreciate that.

    And I suppose I can also say that I respect your enthusiasm for the subject. I mean, heck, you got here to dispute my views and defend your own even before any of my personal friends read this blog installment. But, hey, you can relax and take it easy, because you and those who share your views won this argument a long time ago.

    Sure, every so often a group like The Alliance Defense Fund knocks the snot out of those communists at the ACLU in a court of law, but these are all just small skirmishes in a war that has already been won by the Left. The American People traded in their liberty for bread and circuses long ago, and there’s nothing left for the Left to do now but a little mopping up.

    Trust me, Doug, I and my blog are no threat to your position on this. Christianity is not going to make a big comeback in government, because most of the People have been effectively “secularized”. Aside from that, no one reads this blog. In fact, I am so tired of it myself – so tired of writing - that I’m planning to close this blog down soon. I just have two more new, A-List blog bits to write: an anti-abortion piece (you’ll probably disagree with my view) and an anti-military piece (you might actually partially agree with me on this one). Afterwards, I’m OUTTA HERE!

    But, as the saying goes: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. As our American society has become more and more secularized over the past several decades, as the courts have twisted the original intent of our founding principles to excise Christianity as much as possible from our public life, we see how the morality of the nation has collapsed. True, there is more racial equality now (and that’s a good thing!) but there’s also an equal chance for members of all the races to get shot to death by classmates on the campus, or to be killed in their mother’s womb. It’s incredible! And it also coincides with the secularizing of the nation. Unless, of course, that’s merely a coincidence…

    I really have nothing else I want to add, Doug. You’ve said your piece, I’ve said mine. Most of those people in positions of real power and influence prefer we do it your way. But I wish we could go back to that day when children could sing “O Come, All Ye Faithful” in a public school performance without someone shouting, “That’s illegal!”

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The point of these blog bits is to provide the reader with an understanding of my basic view, and to also point him or her in the direction where they can begin to conduct further study on their own."

    That's exhausting; I do that sometimes, when I'm really willing to go to the mat on something with someone. It takes a lot of effort and research, digging into your *books* (which is literally physically exhausting as opposed to just clicking around for links like most people do - not accusing Doug of doing this; I do not know). But when I find myself in an economics discussion or a homeschooling discussion or certain topics and the person is simply...well ignorant of the basics, all you can do is recommend a good reading list sometimes. It's like, I can't provide you in this format with all of this necessary information you will need in order to even begin to discuss it reasonably. You're going to have to do the work like I have.

    At any rate what I was getting at was no wonder you're sick of blogging, dude. After you've had a nice mental rest consider opening up a whole new avenue with a more light-hearted approach of just having a little fun with it. Then you only take the serious stuff when you really feel like it. (Did I say Please Please Please don't gooo...KC and the Sunshine Band ;) ) We can't afford to lose more national treasures.

    "Ha! Well, Bro, seeing as how Mormonism wasn’t established until 1830, I think we can discard that one, safely assuming that our Founding Fathers hadn’t yet heard of it."

    Hah; didn't bite; very very tactful and classy - I couldn't have resisted that one. Though on certain conservative boards that do have a lot of Mormon posters I do avoid the topic entirely.

    "I just have two more new, A-List blog bits to write: an anti-abortion piece (you’ll probably disagree with my view)"

    Is that the long-awaited (by me) post? I'm very much interested in that one; so far only one person has ever engaged me on any REAL level on the topic or even attempted to address my hypotheticals. Even though he was very much pro-choice, believe me I appreciated that he felt they were relevant and interesting questions and took real time answering them. So I'm very much looking forward to doing the same with a pro-lifer; though I admit that these posts have already shed a bit of light on the subject and where it will probably go. But at least you know you are talking to someone who is genuinely open-minded on the topic and willing to change her mind or, heck, make UP her mind already. Because frankly so far I'm still utterly ambivalent and that is an unpleasant feeling for me; I like to know where I stand and why. But you'll see why I am when we get to it :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. How did I miss this? "If nothing else, it shows that people can discuss controversial issues without getting emotional and losing respect for one another." Heck yeah! I mean, seriously. It seldom happens without moderation or a general agreement in advance though. Or unless like me, the person just happens to fall in like with you and your stuff and disagreements pop up only later on in the details. Or unless you're willing to just set aside certain things and accept the person as he/she is even though they're very very different than you because you've grown accustomed to them. (That happened to me with a lot of people on PunditKitchen - people who had formerly hated me became friends after a while when I learned to realize they were humans with their own pain and their own problems and we could just set aside many issues and talk about other stuff. But it's nice if you can actually talk about that stuff with someone you like but disagree with; usually requires a moderated forum or a very kind person on at least one side.)

    On one moderated forum I have two very nice friends who mean a lot to me; one is sort of an anti-theist but not a materialist who thinks religion is a mental illness (heh) and another is a Norse mythologist (uh; he believes in those gods; I don't think he'd appreciate "mythologist" I just can't think of another word right now - Norse god worshiper?) but we all share generally similar political views on many issues...we can all of us sit down and dig in to any religious discussion at all and just respect each other and each others' beliefs (well, sorta; like I say the one guy does believe religion is a mental illness or a cause of mental illness but he's really cool) and just...talk about it all. At some points I will say "We've been down this road and here is where we fork so this part is for X..." or "this is what *I* believe about this; I understand that you do not" or I may simply ask the other about his religion (he certainly is more than tolerant of mine; I can give him the same courtesy) because it is honestly interesting. I dunno; I guess it's not ALL about beliefs; it's about people too. And frankly once you get behind the names and the labels and find the people, I must be kinda lucky because I often find treasures there. Hopefully at least one or two feel that way about me too :) Who knows, it could happen!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Doug is wrong.

    Stephen McCarthy is right.

    Anyone reading the Founders' own words can reach no other conclusion... at least if they are being honest about what they are reading.

    And although everyone else has managed to avoid invective, I have taken no such vow. Lawyers lie. That is what they are paid to do, and hence there is no way of ever telling if they argue a point because they believe it or if they are doing the bidding of someone else for some purpose other than Truth or Principle.

    Doug, apparently, is a lawyer. I don't what he does "for a living", but he sure as hell spends a lot of time commenting around the internet with his incorrect view of "church and state". Google him and see. I can only assume that the shovel he holds in his icon is there to dispose of the shizzle he shovels.

    McCarthy blogs with no agenda other than to reveal reality, and he is poor as a mouse. A church mouse, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 1:

    ANNIEE!!! ~

    I’m so pleased that you returned here!
    You left several really great comments for me all at once, and I had/have every intention of acknowledging them and responding, but I just plain ran outta time on Wednesday because so much of it was taken up in responding to Doug. And working a full-time job, I only have so much computer time per day. But I was definitely going to return and reply to yours later… and here I am!

    >> . . . Phew - bet you got through all of Pet Sounds writing all this up!

    Ha! You know it! Went through Pet Sounds MANY times. ;o) (“I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times” – you a ‘Joisey Beach Boys fan?)

    >> . . . Sirrah, your writing is derivative, jingositic (sic) and tedious! Oh, wait, no it isn't; it's highly informed, informative, interesting and thorough.

    :o) THANKS! If my writing is derivative, it’s certainly not derived from any author that knuckleheaded chick would have ever read! Jingoistic? Ha! Fat chance! Tedious? Well… [Think I’ll quit while I’m ahead.]

    >> . . . Glad to see you got a Barton quote in there; the left really hates him and does everything in their power to discredit him, but they can't do it.

    Oh, but ain’t that the truth. You can tell which conservatives are most effective by how hard the Leftards go after ‘em! I remember an organized attempt a few years ago involving perhaps 100 Leftists who attacked his book en masse at Amazon.com, all in just a couple of days. [Typically, Amazon did nothing to correct the damage they had done to his rating and his posted review section.]

    >> . . . By the way, that nasty comment to your Amazon blog sounds exactly like Pandagon's owner, Marcotte - she peppers every sentence liberally with f-bombs (much more than I do if you can believe it)

    Sorry, I can’t.
    ;o)

    >> . . . I've said it before and I'll likely say it again; this ain't "Inherit the Wind".

    Wow! I LIKE THAT ONE! (I may have to add it to my collection of all-time favorite quotes.)

    >> . . . That's exhausting; I do that sometimes, when I'm really willing to go to the mat on something with someone. It takes a lot of effort and research, digging into your *books* (which is literally physically exhausting as opposed to just clicking around for links like most people do - not accusing Doug of doing this; I do not know).

    Yeah, it can be a lot of work. But it’s important for those who will come along later, read the old debate, and perhaps have their opinion altered due to your willingness to really put some A-List effort into it.

    Nowadays, though, the only debate topic I’m still willing to put maximum effort into to win is in defense of Senator McCarthy. I’ll MAKE THE TIME to kick some anti-McCarthyite’s ass. But everything else, I’m more likely to say, “Just read these books: _____.”

    >> . . . At any rate what I was getting at was no wonder you're sick of blogging, dude. After you've had a nice mental rest consider opening up a whole new avenue with a more light-hearted approach of just having a little fun with it. Then you only take the serious stuff when you really feel like it. (Did I say Please Please Please don't gooo...KC and the Sunshine Band ;) ) We can't afford to lose more national treasures.

    Ha! Oh, you’re sweet. Thanks!
    Actually, I do have another blog for more light-hearted “stuffs”. It’s called (by strange coincidence) STUFFS. Most readers actually prefer that one to this one, but I don’t. Regardless, I’ll be abandoning that one also, shortly after I close the windows and lock the door on “Fascist Friends”. (I’m just tired of blogging, and I think it’s time to move on to something – anything – else.)

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 2:
    ANNIEE ~

    >> . . . "I just have two more new, A-List blog bits to write: an anti-abortion piece (you’ll probably disagree with my view)"
    >> . . . Is that the long-awaited (by me) post? I'm very much interested in that one…

    You got it, my friend! This is the one I promised you. There is no way I will retire from blogging before I post this one for us to dialogue on. (I’m glad to learn you’re still interested in it.)

    It’ll be the next “new” blog bit here (I may post something from my archives before it though). However, I may ask you to just think about it but not comment on it for a week or so, while I work on my last A-List (anti-military) piece. Then I’ll close up shop here, but I’ll still monitor the comments and we can discuss it at length when I have plenty mo’ time.

    I want to get my last installment posted on this blog before the end of April, and that won’t happen if I’m spending all my computer time in the comment section of the anti-abortion piece. But after my last blog bit goes up, then I will have unlimited time to discuss our abortion views together. Sound like a deal? (I have a hunch this is going to be a very, very interesting discussion, that will take into account some related issues that a lot of pro-Life individuals don’t spend much time wrestling with.)

    >> . . . Because frankly so far I'm still utterly ambivalent and that is an unpleasant feeling for me; I like to know where I stand and why. But you'll see why I am when we get to it.

    Nah. I seriously doubt you are “utterly ambivalent”. I think you essentially know where you stand, but there are a couple of troublesome spots that leave a slight nagging doubt. (I don’t mean to tell you what you’re thinking or feeling; I’m just kind of guesstimating, based on my own deeper thoughts about this issue. We’ll see. Should be some interesting yak.)

    >> . . . That happened to me with a lot of people on PunditKitchen - people who had formerly hated me became friends after a while when I learned to realize they were humans with their own pain and their own problems and we could just set aside many issues and talk about other stuff.

    Now wait a minute! I didn’t say these people are all “human” ‘n’ shit! I just said we should be able to yak it out without getting too emotional and losing (what little) respect we have for ‘em.
    ;o)
    Ha!

    I know you left me a few more comments (one was on my old “BigBitch.com” post, as I recall). I’ll find ‘em (but not tonight) and reply to ya there also.

    Thanks, Anniee, for all your great comments. I always enjoy our exchanges because they’re rarely superficial.

    Yak Again Later…

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  16. MR. SHEBOYGANBOY SIX ~
    Thanks for weighing in, Brother!
    Glad to discover ya here.

    What I find to be so amazing (“so crazy” would be a more accurate way of expressing it) is how folks like Doug expect us to believe that the Founding Fathers themselves were misinterpreting and transgressing the principles in their own documents from pretty much Day One!

    I mean, here we have the Founders being sworn into office with their hands placed upon a Holy Bible; we have them proclaiming national days of prayer and thanksgiving; we have them using Federal funds to hire chaplains; and the Supreme Court is appealing to God for assistance in rendering its judgments, but we’re expected to believe that our Founders intended for there to be some TOTAL, ABSOLUTE “wall” or separation between the Christian religion and ALL Federal government activity? C’mon, man, I ain’t buyin’ THAT load of horse manure!

    These are the men who founded the country and established the principles and debated and wrote the documents, but even they were misunderstanding their own principles RIGHT OUT OF THE CHUTE?! What, are we all really supposed to be THAT gullible? It’s a damned insult to one’s (God-given) intelligence!

    >> . . . And although everyone else has managed to avoid invective, I have taken no such vow. Lawyers lie. That is what they are paid to do, and hence there is no way of ever telling if they argue a point because they believe it or if they are doing the bidding of someone else for some purpose other than Truth or Principle.

    Ha! Well… I just didn’t want to say it because I’m this blog’s host and I’m supposed to act all civilized ‘n’ stuff(s). So… thanks for sayin’ what I felt I was only allowed to think.

    >> . . . Doug, apparently, is a lawyer. I don't what he does "for a living", but he sure as hell spends a lot of time commenting around the internet with his incorrect view of "church and state". Google him and see.

    Ya know, I suspected so. I didn’t take the time to Google him, but “outsiders” very rarely find my blog. It’s usually just my few friends who submit comments, so when his lengthy comments showed up here about 24 hours after my posting these blog bits, I was sure his finding this blog was no mere accident, and that he was Googling “Separation Of Church And State” or (perhaps even more likely) David B. and the title of his book.

    Plus, seriously, why would a lawyer waste time arguing with me? Is ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ really a threat to upset the “secular apple cart”? I think NOT! (I was on to it from the start, but I wanted to “play nice” since he didn’t stoop to the common Leftist level of ad hominem argument.)

    >> . . . I can only assume that the shovel he holds in his icon is there to dispose of the shizzle he shovels.

    Ha! Oh, is it a shovel? I was thinkin’ it was a guitar. (Yeah, an Internet-surfing, guitar-playing lawyer. I runs into ‘em all da time.)

    I enjoyed your comment, SheboyganBrother! Thanks.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stupid word limits. Two parts. Ah how bittersweet. I see what you're doing and love you for it. Oddly enough we both latched onto the same phrase to comment on...

    "And although everyone else has managed to avoid invective, I have taken no such vow. Lawyers lie."

    I took no such vow either; I merely respect the blog owner's wishes as nearly as I can if I'm gonna participate :) However, I applaud your stance and as to the last two words I quoted? Bwahahaha! Sorry, McCarthy, but that's freaking funny.

    "McCarthy blogs with no agenda other than to reveal reality, and he is poor as a mouse. A church mouse, actually."

    My goodness, did my friend accumulate OTHER friends along the way? Say it ain't so! Hehe. Methinks your works precede you! And oh please tell me you aren't as poor as we are - I...well I probably couldn't live with myself if I thought you really were :( Dear God please bless my kind friend with all the riches he deserves, in this life and the next.

    “I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times” – you a ‘Joisey Beach Boys fan?"

    Hehe God only knows what I'd be without you! I have long used the Beach Boys in my argument with my Beatles Fan friend (who credits them with inventing light or something) as an example of what was going on HERE before the British Invasion. And the Ronettes lol. I happen to love Brian Wilson. But FWIW no one here in Jersey says "Joisey" - that's a New York accent lol. I know we're accused of having it but we don't. We talk pretty much without an accent in these parts, and I've wondered if that contributes to a lack of character. Story and discussion for another day.

    "You can tell which conservatives are most effective by how hard the Leftards go after ‘em!"

    I hope that's true; it means I'm on the right path.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I’m glad to learn you’re still interested in it."

    Hells yeah I'm still interested! As I said, only one person has ever answered the hypotheticals and NO ONE has gone beyond that to simply dig into the issue in an honest manner to just help me find the truth of the matter. And I absolutely want to know. How could I lose interest before it's settled? And once it's settled, there's still the fight with the gov't to settle, no?

    "Thanks, Anniee, for all your great comments. I always enjoy our exchanges because they’re rarely superficial."

    You deserve and merit a tad more than superficiality, I'd say. And I'll always say so. Sure, with some people I won't go beyond the surface and will just say "Pass the rum balls" but that isn't you.

    "Plus, seriously, why would a lawyer waste time arguing with me? Is ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ really a threat to upset the “secular apple cart”? I think NOT!"

    Don't sell yourself short. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. And...ok I don't know your life, but I know mine (and you've never judged me for it so I'll be honest) as it says in one of my favorite books, "Your mother doesn't OWE you anything. She clothed you and held you and fed you, and if she did it with a drink in her hand, she still did it with STYLE!" It comforts my ragged soul a bit. I remind myself that I DO all the good works that I am able to do...and well maybe I do them or have done them with a drink in my hand, but that doesn't lessen their worth (filthy rags, right? heh). I can't claim quite the style that the author attributes the character in question, but maybe I have a style of my own. A FEW people think so anyway. And as each soldier falls the remaining few mean that much more to me. I'm promised never to be left entirely desolate...when my father and mother forsake me (duh, long ago; but representing all earthly friends) the Lord shall take me up. He has to be counted on. When you've had no earthly father to count on that's real hard to trust but you've helped remind me to trust. So remember you've done something for someone somewhere, even if it's a worthless lush ;) Hugs. There are even a few earthly people who still love me too. We'll see how that all plays out in the end I suppose and meet on the golden shores eventually either way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ANNIEE ~
    >>>….My goodness, did my friend accumulate OTHER friends along the way? Say it ain't so! Hehe. Methinks your works precede you! And oh please tell me you aren't as poor as we are - I...well I probably couldn't live with myself if I thought you really were

    Nah, I ain’t really poor as a church mouse. I’m too lucky for real poverty:

    “They say I shot a man named Gray
    and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks
    and when she died it came to me.
    I can’t help it if I’m lucky”


    But I have sent some books to Mr. Sheboyganboy in the past, and he’s done the same for me – including turning me on to the old Bob & Ray radio program, which was often hysterically funny. (You familiar with it?)

    >>>….But FWIW no one here in Jersey says "Joisey" - that's a New York accent lol. I know we're accused of having it but we don't.

    Oops. Sorry ‘bout that. I never got out of the Pacific Ocean long enough to find out how the other half (of the country) lived.

    >>>….I have long used the Beach Boys in my argument with my Beatles Fan friend (who credits them with inventing light or something)

    Oh yeah, I remember that now.
    Hey with that in mind, check this older post out, Anniee. It’s pretty (too) long, so maybe just read the brief intro and then scroll down to “The Lucky Cuss Saloon” in Tombstone, Airheadzona, and read my little bit of commentary there. You might enjoy my “punkiness” with the English Beatles fans:

    7 HEAVENS: My All-Time Favorite Bars, Saloons, Lounges & Watering Holes.

    >>>….So remember you've done something for someone somewhere, even if it's a worthless lush

    Hey, NOBODY is worthless.
    (And besides that, we worthless lushes gotta stick together!)

    >>>….Sure, with some people I won't go beyond the surface and will just say "Pass the rum balls" but that isn't you.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with rum balls!
    “Psst… Buddy… Got any rum balls?”
    :o)

    >>>….as it says in one of my favorite books, "Your mother doesn't OWE you anything. She clothed you and held you and fed you, and if she did it with a drink in her hand, she still did it with STYLE!"

    What’s the title of the book?

    >>>….And once it's settled, there's still the fight with the gov't to settle, no?

    Yup. Absolutely. You know it.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  20. DOUG INDEEP Wrote:
    >>>....While some, like you, draw meaning from the reference to "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is baseless. ... there simply is no "legal" connection or effect between the two documents.

    I can't help wondering if "the supreme law of the land", the U.S. Constitution itself, constitutes a "legal" enough "connection".

    For the U.S. Constitution closes with the following words:

    ARTICLE VII
    "...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".


    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stephen,

    Your resort to the Constitution's dating convention doesn't get you where you want to go. The Constitution refers to the "Independence" of the former colonies 12 years before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, i.e., 1775, the year Paul Revere road, the Minutemen fired the shot heard round the world, and George Washington assumed command of the Continental Army, and does not refer to the "Declaration" of Independence in 1776.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Part 1 Of 2:

    DOUG ~
    Still peddlin’ pap? Does that horse-puckey really sell in Paducah? ‘Cause it sure won’t fly HERE, you non-lawyer-like fellow.

    Yeah, nobody’s buyin’ the “lawyer” masquerade either. Like a lawyer has the time and inclination to flit all over the Internet leaving (patently false) Separation of Church and State comments, and then takes the time to return and see if any of the bad seed he’s sown has grown.

    >> . . . The Constitution refers to the "Independence" of the former colonies 12 years before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, i.e., 1775, the year Paul Revere road, the Minutemen fired the shot heard round the world, and George Washington assumed command of the Continental Army, and does not refer to the "Declaration" of Independence in 1776.

    Yeah? Well, not according to THIS site and THIS site and THIS site.

    And not according to logic nor to the numbers! If the LOGIC don’t get ya, then the NUMBERS will…

    LOGIC: Why would our remarkably brilliant and thoroughly, classically educated Founding Fathers peg the dating of the U.S. Constitution to the “Shot Heard ‘Round The World” – an opening skirmish with the British, prior to any organized, authoritative separation from England; rather than pegging it to the monumental document the Founders sweated over, vigorously debated, and then pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to when they affixed their names to it?

    NUMBERS: It’s true that statistics can lie, but basic math never does. So, let’s crunch the numbers, “Lawyer”-man:

    The Declaration Of Independence: July 4, 1776.
    Therefore, July 4, 1777 marked its one-year anniversary; 7/4/78, was the 2-year anniversary; 7/4/79 represented a full three years of the Declaration’s existence, etc., etc., etc. Until you get to July 4, 1787, which marks 11 full years that the Declaration has been in effect. Therefore, when the U.S. Constitution was completed and signed, on September 17, 1787, our Founders and this country were over two months into the --[everyone say it with me!]-- “TWELFTH YEAR” of their national independence as counted from the signing of the Declaration!

    Doug, I want to congratulate you on being the very first person I’ve ever encountered whose math skills are worse than my own! (I didn’t think that person existed.)

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Part 2 Of 2:

    I have very few readers, Doug, but I and the few readers I DO have would need to jettison 60 IQ points each in order to fall for any of your balderdash.

    I really ought to ban you from my blog for the crime of severely insulting our intelligence, however, your comments actually strengthen my position and only serve to illustrate for others the extent of pretzel logic, deception, and outright lies that folks like you will engage in while attempting to undermine the obvious religious foundation our nation was constructed upon.

    In closing, Doug, I’ll state that I figure almost assuredly you are an atheist. And since Liberalism and atheism so often go hand-in-hand, I’d guess the odds are that you’re a Leftist as well.

    If you’re indeed an atheist, I want to recommend a couple of books to you. Please read “EVIDENCE FOR FAITH: Deciding The God Question” edited by John Warwick Montgomery, and “THE CASE FOR A CREATOR: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God” by Lee Strobel. (I have plenty more books I could recommend, but those are excellent starting points.)

    Jesus said: “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Brother, by doing what you do - running around the Internet trying to persuade people that our nation has no historical Christian foundation - you are attempting to remove as much as possible our national Christ-consciousness and you are making it as difficult as possible for little children to learn the truth about their country and its Christian principles. You may already be guilty of causing little ones who might otherwise believe in Christ to “stumble”, because you are trying to remove any reference to Him from their government-sanctioned education.

    I sincerely hope you will “see the Light” and choose aright before the statute of limitations on choosing expires and you are stuck answering for the choices you are currently making. It’s not yet too late to correct your mistakes. “It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.”

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  24. You've begun to aim your comments more at me than at the issues and arguments. For that, I should ban myself from your blog.

    But I'll indulge in a parting shot. I do not, as you assert, try to persuade people our nation has no historical Christian foundation. Of course, many of the founders were Christian and their religion informed their political and policy views. That fact does not detract in the least from the further fact that they drafted a Constitution that (1) establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) says nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) says nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, says nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office and the First Amendment provisions constraining the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The founders refrained from any expression in the Constitution even remotely suggesting that the government is somehow connected to or predicated on any religious belief. Given the norms of the day, that was quite a remarkable and controversial and plainly intentional choice.

    Whether or not you like it, the principle of separation of church and state IS the law of the land and, indeed, a bedrock principle of our nation. Moreover, it is not, as you seem to suppose, an atheist or liberal idea. (You seem to like to label people and ideas--and suppose by doing so that you've somehow made a point or argument.)

    I have to grant you that counting point. While put off by your manner of teaching, I did actually learn something from you. Mathematics plainly is not my strong suit. I resorted to it thinking that was the easiest of any number of ways to show the absence of the connection you seek to make between the two documents. I should have instead simply pointed out that the Constitution expressly refers to the "Independence" of the states and not the "Declaration," so it does not make the connection you assert. Moreover, even if it had referred to the Declaration as an event from which to measure time, that would hardly serve to somehow incorporate the language of the Declaration into the Constitution.

    There is a well established principle that a legislature cannot in one year bind future legislatures to act or not act in particular ways. A corollary concept applies here. The people of the colonies in declaring their independence on July 4, 1776, did not and, indeed, could not bind the people of the future independent states, 12 years hence, to form a government conforming to any particular prescription. The independent people of 1787 were free to form any sort of government they chose--and they chose to form a secular one predicated on the power of the people and not on the power of a deity.

    Perhaps the absence of any legal connection between the Declaration and the Constitution can best be shown by observing that the Declaration has never had the force of law as has our Constitution. While courts have occasionally noted the Declaration as an historical fact, they have never, not once in our entire history, supposed it to have the force of law as does the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Part 1 Of 4:

    DOUG INDEAP ~
    First off, know that your comment would have been posted here and responded to in a far more timely manner had it not been for “buggery” in the blogspot.com system:

    I discovered your comment in my “Spam” file, rather than in the “Comments Awaiting Moderation” file. I do not frequently open the Spam file, but generally wait until it has amassed a number of submissions before going in and deleting them. When it stacked up to 16, I opened it and found this comment from you amongst 15 pieces of what was genuinely Spam. I had no idea that you had returned yet again until I went to clean out the 16 messages caught by the Spam filter and found your May 28th comment amongst them.

    >>...You've begun to aim your comments more at me than at the issues and arguments.

    Chalk it up to the great respect and the warmth of feeling I have for you.

    >>…For that, I should ban myself from your blog. But I'll indulge in a parting shot.

    Aww, gee! Doug, I thought this was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

    >>...I do not, as you assert, try to persuade people our nation has no historical Christian foundation.

    Oh, but you certainly spend a lot of time and energy engaged in Internet searches attempting to convince people far and wide that the historical Christian foundation of our country is now irrelevant and legally banned in every respect from the public square. And you conduct these searches and post these comments with the religious zeal of a Marxist, a Humanist, or pick your preferred brand of atheistic materialist.

    But the bottom line is that you were here attempting (very feebly and incorrectly, I’ll add) to dispute my position within 24 hours of this 3-part blog installment being posted. You are ON IT, Buddy! And you can be found all over the Internet making these same erroneous arguments. Attempting to ban any shred of Christianity from government and the public arena is YOUR RELIGION! You conduct your raids with the obsessive zeal of the most over-the-top religionists I have ever encountered. You make the Mormons look like freakin’ SLACKERS! You proselytize like a godless priest on commission.

    I don’t believe that “real” atheists would band together at a website called ‘Atheist Nexus’, where you maintain a profile page. To borrow from The Bard: The atheist doth protest too much, methinks.

    In fact, I believe there are really very few atheists out there and you, buddy, ain’t one of them! “Real atheists” wouldn’t spend so much time and energy fighting against something they really thought had no more reality than a mirage. Nor would they be putting so much effort into attempting to convince others to stop worshipping something that doesn’t exist. If so many self-labeled atheists geniunely believed that God is essentially just a myth, like an unseen “Santa Claus” rewarding or punishing good or bad little boys and girls, then they wouldn’t get so worked up over the issue. They would more likely laugh at the silly people who are worshipping something that ain’t really there and then go on their ungodly, “enlightened”, “intellectual” way.

    But you people who work so hard to deceive others into believing there is no God, or attempt to have the influence of God excised from our public life, you people aren’t so much atheists as you are God-haters; few of you are authentic non-believing atheists, but more akin to Karl Marx who apparently did believe in God and chose to hate Him (most likely because Marx couldn’t understand God and His ways).

    So, buddy, not only do I believe you’re misrepresenting yourself as a lawyer but, true to that pattern, I believe you’re misrepresenting the facts about God and His place in the founding of our country and His rightful place in the affairs of our nation. And furthermore, I even believe that you are misrepresenting your own belief about God – perhaps even deluding yourself in the process.

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Part 2 Of 4:

    >>...they drafted a Constitution that (1) establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) says nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion…

    [Yeah, except for those inconvenient bits about dating it in accordance with “the Year of our Lord” and tying it into “the independence of the United States of America” – a separation and independence from England that was explicitly stated in their proclamation to the world that they considered themselves justified by their understanding of God-given rights which the mother country had chronically trampled and ignored. All except for those parts, eh?]

    I saw that place on one webpage where someone used the Preamble of the Constitution [“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”] as an argument against your claim that the Constitution was not connecting itself to the earlier movement originating with the Declaration of Independence. Hokey-Smoke! Were you able to choke down that dry piece of truth without water? Ha!

    Dude, you can repeat this bamboozling balderdash over and over again; you can write it a hundred thousand times on the chalkboard; you can go home and say it to yourself while gazing in a mirror and watching your lips move; you can post it in chat forums far and wide, but… that ain’t gonna make it true! Although, agreed, it might fool some of the Americonned Sheeple because indeed, Indeap, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and unfortunately there is some validity to the theory that if one repeats a lie often enough, the lazy, uninformed masses will begin to accept the lie as truth. HOWEVER...

    ...you ain’t NEVER gonna fool me, nor fool the few friends I have who visit this blog and comment. And seeing as how the only people who visit here are my few friends who know the truth and understand the lie about “separation of church and state”, your motivation mystifies me. What do you hope to gain by repeating over and over the same falsehood on this blog of mine? You already know that I know the truth and will not be conned. I KNOW you’re a conman and you know I know, so what’s the gig? There’s NOBODY here but you and me and a couple of American patriots of the Christian variety, so why do you return only to repeat the same weak arguments over and over as if you have something to gain by them here? Do I or does anyone else who has posted here seem like someone you really have any potential to convert to your view?

    >>...(3) says nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion…

    That little I do agree with. As I articulated in my blog installment, while it’s true that the Federal government is constrained from DICTATING matters of God and Religion to We The People; while it cannot force us into any particular line of thinking (and I personally would fight it if it did), nevertheless, government is NOT entirely precluded from making any acknowledgment about God or from supporting any Godly endeavors. It’s plain and simple: only Congress is supposed to draft laws, and Congress is not permitted to legally force us or restrict us in matters of religion.

    But that’s a far cry from saying that every mention of God must be excised from public life and that We The People can’t voluntarily say a prayer prior to a high school football game!

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Part 3 Of 4:

    In my blog, I illustrated a number of ways in which the government traditionally encouraged Christianity and I could have listed hundreds of more examples had I wanted to make this a 100-part blog bit rather than just a 3-part blog bit. If the Federal Government was truly designed to exclude any and every sort of religious expression whatsoever, then that means the very men who designed that form of government either misunderstood it themselves, or else they were transgressing the very principles that they themselves formulated right from the get-go, immediately, straight out of the Constitutional chute.

    What kind of maroon do you take me for?

    Frankly, I’m tired of repeating myself in response to your same baseless, evidence-free anti-religion statements. You come here with false claims, twisted views, and offer nothing that holds even one-thousandth of the force and logic of the Edwin Vieira essay I posted here - “BEDROCK OF THE CONSTITUTION”. Edwin Vieira is a 3-time winner in the U.S. Supreme Court, and his essay has already thoroughly dismantled every pseudo-argument you’ve made to support your belief that there is no legal bond between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    Dig it: You have nothing but the same false mantra repeated endlessly. Everything you attempt to establish was already well refuted in my original 3-part blog posting. In other words, I can stand on the weight of my blog installment alone.

    “East of the Jordan,
    Hard as the Rock of Gibraltar,
    I see the burning of the page,
    Curtain risin' on a new age,
    See the Groom still waitin' at the altar.”


    >>...While put off by your manner of teaching, I did actually learn something from you. Mathematics plainly is not my strong suit.

    Doug, I wasn’t so much “teaching you” as “slapping you”, but let us not quibble over vocabulary. I concede that my manner has not been so kindly; true, a streak of blunt, barely-cloaked rudeness on my part developed as this discussion continued.

    However, you made a miscalculation when you undertook to engage with me: First, I am the bastard son of Genghis Khan and Ann Coulter and I get an “F” in the category of “Plays Well With Others”. Secondly, you are no doubt accustomed to debating Christians and thus have generally been on the receiving end of the nice, kid-glove treatment of Christ’s good people. I, however, do not consider myself a “Christian”; I do not shine my shoes nor comb my hair. And... although I may go to hell for it (or more likely, reincarnate), I make no effort to win my enemies over with kindness. When you found me, you found a whole new breed of cat – one with claws and an un-Christian temperament.

    The truth of the matter is that, rather than mellowing with age, I am becoming more and more irritated and less and less patient with people like you. As the years gather, decent civilization crumbles around me. I see plainly the damage to society that has resulted from God-loving people failing to engage in the righteous fight of opposing the Doug Indeaps of the world. We have let you people get your way to the point that Western Civilization is breathing its last and society is in turmoil in nearly every measurable category from which we can evaluate and grade the quality of a society. And I blame the “Doug Indeaps” (along with our “New World Order” Elitist Masters behind the scenes, and the lazy American populace which has traded liberty for bread and circuses).

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Part 4 Of 4:

    Doug, you ought to be grateful that I adhere to my own comment posting policy and attempt to keep things as civilized as I humanly can, because otherwise, if I were to REALLY open up both barrels here and told you what I sincerely think of you and your tribe, your jaw would drop to the floor and your eyes would instantly melt in their sockets. You have no idea how much restraint I have displayed here. If I were to REALLY let loose, I could weave a tapestry of obscenities that as far as we know would still be hanging in space over Lake Michigan a hundred years into the future... if there is a future for America.

    >>...You seem to like to label people and ideas--and suppose by doing so that you've somehow made a point or argument.

    Just as the saying goes, “Is it still paranoia if everybody REALLY IS out to get you?”, I ask, “Is labeling still a bad thing even if you’re labeling things correctly?”

    Doug, I understand the Big Picture. I probably read more high quality nonfiction in a single year than the average American reads in two or three decades. Whether you understand it or not, be assured that I get the connection between the efforts to promote false science like Global Warming and Darwinism and false flag terrorist operations and the wars for oil in the Middle East, to the same-sex marriage agenda in the name of civil rights, and the push to centralize government as much as possible - from the twisting of the 14th Amendment to the demand for a national health care program, etc. I know what’s being perpetrated in the name of the Elite’s idea of Utopia.

    And... I understand how the effort to remove God from our public consciousness fits into the Big Picture with all the aforementioned plots. Karl Marx said, “If you can cut people off from their history they can be easily persuaded”.

    Do yourself a favor and acquire a copy of the 1996 book “TREASON: The New World Order” by Gurudas (real name: Ronald Lee Garman) and read the chapter titled “Fooling The People” which will illustrate a variety of nefarious ways in which the deceivers have attempted to remove God from our public life. It’s an expensive, out-of-print book, but with all the money you make as a lawyer, certainly price is no object in your quest for truth.

    And while you have that book in your hands, be sure to also read the chapter titled “State Rights And The Federal Government”. You previously attempted to use the 14th Amendment in an attempt to bolster your position, but that chapter will plainly show you the illegal means by which that amendment was (falsely) ratified and consequently it will straighten you out about that matter as well. You have much knowledge to gain by reading the Gurudas book.

    Doug, I can’t say much for your Truthfulness nor for your Intellectual Honesty, however, I certainly award you an “A” in the subjects of Blind Persistence and Godless Religious Zeal.

    But if you think you’re going to get the last word on MY blog, think again!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Comment Moderation is activated. All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.