Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

October 23, 2006

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - OCTOBER 23, 2006

"COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

Host: Keith Olbermann

Topics/Guests:

COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek senior White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; AB Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill

As we get closer to the election, we can expect Krazy Keith to become increasingly frenetic. So it is that the opening spiel tonight found Olby bellowing like an auctioneer on speed, hyperventilating about "stay the course", a Newsweek poll on impeachment, and a plug for his "special comment" [1]: how Republican ads "terrify Americans".

The Hour of Spin proper kicked off with the President "flip-flopping" and another tease for the "special comment" [2]: why Republicans "do the terrorists work for them". But the lead item on the plate was Bad News from Iraq and the President backing off from "stay the course". This was intro for The Wolffe Man, who opined that the Iraq strategy "hasn't worked", and Karl Rove's script "hasn't got much legs".

Olby Great Thanksed him and turned to the latest Newsweek poll. He cherry-picked all the bad numbers for the Republicans, left out trends that may actually be moving in the GOP's favor, and made no mention of the fact that the poll surveyed "adults" (not even registered voters, let alone likely ones) or the GOP/Dem breakdown in the sample. Stoddard of The Hill didn't think it would be a Democrat tsunami, so Krazy Keith dutifully brought up the Foley scandal, which "only needs two more weeks of life" to have an effect. And KO is going to do his best to be sure it gets two more weeks of life. Upset that the eevil Rove is "ratcheting up the rhetoric" and spoiling all his election plans, "Fat Ass" Olbermann inquired:

Is that an issue attacked [sic] against Pelosi or is it a gender-specific attack against Pelosi?

Yes, you read that right. Keith Olbermann, to whom women are old "bags", or "sluts", or worse, or uglier than Michael Moore, is concerned about gender-specific attacks! It'll take more than that to get him back in good graces among feminists discontented with his misogynistic attacks on the females of the species. He changed the topic to the unelected Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez, while cheerfully avoiding all the ethical problems and investigations swirling around the guy.

After Great Thanksing Stoddard, there was another plug for the "special" comment [3] (special in the same sense as one speaks of "special" education). Then, as a change of pace, he teased the upcoming special comment [4]. Finally we got to the #4 story, which could be entitled Barrack and Awe. Trying to make the news all about himself, Olby preposterously claimed that Obama actually let the cat out of the bag re his Presidential ambitions Friday night on The Hour of Spin. In fact, Obama made vague generalizations without breaking any news, and Edward R Olbermann let it pass. Tim Russert, on the other hand, nailed him down with a specific question ("But it's fair to say you're thinking about running for president in 2008?"). Russert knows how to conduct an interview and Krazy Keith doesn't, but Olby's ready to take credit anyhow ("Me and Russ") for news he didn't break. Rerun reportage from NBC fleshed out the story.

Olby plugged his special comment [5] before a transfixingly brilliant chapter of "oddball". Next the #3 story: dirty politics. Hillary's opponent called her ugly. Allegedly. Wait, is that worst than being called a "slut"? Or a "c-nt"? Never mind. Then a round-up of nasty campaign ads, all, by amazing coincidence, run by the Republicans. Because Dems never run nasty ads. More talk of "raising fears". Ooh! Ooh! Is it time for the "special comment"? Um, no. This was merely an elongated plug for the s.c. [6], followed by another one of conventional length [7].

#2 was a piece on the World Series, plus the Chicago marathon, Madonna, and a tease of the special comment [8]. In the Media Matters Minute, the State Department was targeted, as was Sean Hannity. "Comedian" Rush Limbaugh was "worst" for his mild rebuke of Michael J Fox, inflated by Monkeymann into a crime against humanity. Krazy Keith found a new name for radio's #1 talk host: "Limp-Baugh". He said it twice. Well, he tried to say it twice, but bobbled one attempt so badly it was incomprehensible. Does anyone else marvel at Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann, who probably buys his Cialis by the gross, casting aspersions at someone else's "capabilities"? Yikes, hasn't he ever heard of Karma?

Olby must be concerned that somebody out there might just make an effort to position themselves to his left, as daunting a task as that might be. What with CNN running a terrorist-produced snuff film, and launching a series of pre-election specials, the subtly-titled "Broken Government", KO is not about to let anyone make advances on his target audience. So that meant another "special comment"--you know, the "special comments" that Olby said you shouldn't do too often, because it becomes "insincere", because then you become "a caricature". Tonight's installment, his third polemic in less than a week, was fully up to the level (of hyperbole, hysteria, and hypocrisy) set in his previous installments. He revisited his phony claim that the football stadium threat involved New York, and launched into another beserk attack on the GOP and "Mister" Bush. It even had the now-obligatory Dramatic Pivot to Camera Three, timed and executed exactly as indicated in the script provided by his writers. [See APPENDIX below]

With Olbermann, one can always expect a generous helping of hypocrisy, and he went to that deep well again tonight. The thrust of this latest tract was that the eeevil Republicans are campaigning using "fear" and "scare tactics". How so? They have the temerity to make an argument that Democrat policies might make us less safe, and more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. But how is it that the GOP is attacked in a "special comment" for making the identical arguments that Dems have been throwing around for months? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created a hard-hitting ad--using the image of UBL, no less--to claim that Republican policies are making the US less safe. The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann was so unconcerned that he never even mentioned it, even though it attracted significant press coverage. The Democratic party says America is less safe because of Bush. A-Mess-NBC's own resident radical, Ron Reagan, declaims that the GOP has made us "less safe". As does Olby hero Richard Clarke. And Harry Reid. And Countdown guest Jamie Gorelick. And John Kerry. And the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats declare that the US is now "vulnerable", thanks to the GOP. Howard Dean says the same thing. And Sen Ted Kennedy takes it a step further: the Republicans have left us vulnerable to nuclear attack. Mushroom clouds--the ultimate scare tactic! Just like the mushroom clouds KO brought up in his "special comment". Yet Monkeymann couldn't care less. Because on OlbyPlanet, scare tactics raised by Democrats don't even get a raised eyebrow, while Republicans are pummelled nightly by the discredited sports guy. Tonight's harangue proved again what a hypocrite Olbermoronn is. Which is a nice way of saying that this tendentious partisan pamphleteer is truly nothing more than a slovenly political hack.

Dogs that did not bark: What does Edward R Olbermann do when news doesn't fit with his spin-o'-the-day? Tonight it was all about minimizing the terror threat, to make Republicans look bad for emphasizing it. So when Talibanistas go on the record promising attacks against civilians in Europe, Krazy Keith is silent. The Dow Jones again found the market hitting historic highs today, and gas prices continue to decline. Both of these were news when the trajectories were opposite, and both were summarily ignored tonight. Olby's great interest in alleged decades-old statements by George Allen (R) is to be expected, since it is a key talking point of the blue blogs. But KO's inquisitive nature quickly dissipates when a different senator (D) is found to have been conspiring with Communists at the height of the Cold War. It's pointless, of course, to expect Krazy Keith to admit when one of his exclusive "scoops" turns out to have been nothing of the sort, so it's no surprise thatOlbermoronn refused to correct or retract his repellent smear of Albert Pujols and Chris Mihlfield, lifted from a discredited and retracted blog entry.

Amazon has already discounted ~~Olbermann's book~~ the book that bears Olbermann's name by almost 50%, yet it's only ranked #188 in sales, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #23. At Barnes & Noble, the OlbyTome has sunk to an embarrassing #1,920, while O'Reilly's best-seller is #24. With the "special comments" coming thick and fast, Herr Olbermann is desperate to get a number; Friday's returns show him in third place among total viewers, while (on a low-viewership night) eeking out second in Keith's coveted, all-important, critical, beloved, key "demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 7 [HIGH]

APPENDIX: Keith Olbermoronn's Latest Special Komment:

Tonight, a special comment on the advertising of terrorism - the commercial you have already seen.

It is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.

It is from the Republican National Committee;

It shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri;

It offers quotes from them--all as a clock ticks ominously in the background.

It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001: His dubious claim that he had purchased "suitcase bombs."

The quotation is followed (by sheer coincidence no doubt) by an image of a massive explosion.

"These are the stakes," appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson's infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964.

"Vote--November 7th."

There is a cheap "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about--except, obviously, when elections were near.

Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.

But--not everyone.

And therein lies the true threat to this country.

The dictionary definition of the word "terrorize" is simple and not open to misinterpretation:

"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."

Note please, that the words "violence" and "death" are missing from that definition.

The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act--but the fear of the act.

That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.

But why is the Republican Party imitating them?

Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; The Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear.

The Republicans are paying to have the messages of bin Laden and the others broadcast into your home.

Only the Republicans have a bigger bank roll.

When, last week, the CNN network ran video of an insurgent in Iraq, evidently stalking and killing an American soldier, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, Republican of California, branded that channel, quote, "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film" and that CNN used it "to sell commercials."

Another California Republican, Rep. Brian Bilbray, called the video "nothing short of a terrorist snuff film."

If so, Mr. Bilbray, then what in the hell is your Party's new advertisement?

And Mr. Hunter, CNN using the video to "sell commercials"?

Commercials!

You have adopted bin Laden and Zawahiri as spokesmen for the Republican National Committee!

"To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."

By this definition, the people who put these videos together--first the terrorists and then the administration--whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking--they are the ones terrorizing you.

By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaida.

But the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party.

Eleven Presidents ago, a chief executive reassured us that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

His distant successor has wasted his administration insisting that there is nothing we can have but fear itself.

The vice president, as recently as this month, was caught campaigning with the phrase "mass death in the United States."

Four years ago it was the now-Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, rationalizing Iraq with "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Days later Mr. Bush himself told an audience that "we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

And now we have this cheesy commercial--complete with images of a faked mushroom cloud, and implications of "mass death in America."

This administration has derived benefit and power from terrorizing the very people it claims to be protecting from terror.

It may be the oldest trick in the political book: scare people into believing they are in danger and that only you can save them.

Lyndon Johnson used it to bury Barry Goldwater.

Joe McCarthy leaped from obscurity on its back.

And now the legacy has come to President George Bush.

Of course, the gruel of fear is getting thinner and thinner, is it not, Mr. President?

And thus more and more of it needs to be made out of less and less actual terror.

After last week's embarrassing Internet hoax about â€˜dirty bombs' at football stadiums, the one your Department of Homeland Security immediately disseminated to the public, a self-described "former CIA operative" named Wayne Simmons, cited the fiasco as "the, and I mean the, perfect example of the President's Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program - how vital they are."

Frank Gaffney, once a respected assistant secretary of defense and now the president of something called the Center for Security Policy, added, "one of the things that I hope Americans take away from this, is not only that they're gunning for us not just in a place like Iraq--but truly, worldwide."

Of course, the "they" to which Mr. Gaffney referred, turned out to be a lone 20-year-old grocery bagger from Wisconsin named Jake--a kid, trying to one-up some other loser in an Internet game of chicken.

His "threat," referenced seven football stadiums at which dirty bombs were to be exploded yesterday. It began with the one in New York City - even though there isn't one in New York City. And though the attacks were supposed to be simultaneous, four of the games were scheduled to start at 1 p.m. ET and the others at 4 p.m. ET.

More over, the kid said he'd posted the identical message on 40 websites since September.

We caught him in "merely" about six weeks, even though the only way he could have been less subtle, less stealthy, and less of a threat was if he'd bought an advertisement on the Super Bowl broadcast.

Mr. Bush, this is the--what? â€“ 100th plot your people have revealed, that turned out to be some nonsensical misunderstanding, or the fabrications of somebody hoping to talk his way off a water board in Eastern Europe?

If, Mr. President, this is the kind of crack work that your new ad implies that only you and not the Democrats can do, you, sir, need to pull over and ask for directions.

The real question of course, Mr. Bush, is why did your Department of Homeland Security even release this information in the first place?

It was never a serious threat. Even the first news accounts quoted a Homeland spokesman as admitting "strong skepticism"--the kind of strong skepticism which most government agencies address before telling the public, not afterwards.

So that leaves two options, Mr. President.

The first option: you and your department of Homeland Security don't have the slightest idea what you're doing. Thus, contrary to your flip-flopping between saying "we're safe" and saying "but we're not safe enough," and contrary to the vice president's swaggering pronouncements about the lack of another attack since 9/11, the last five years has been just an accident.

Or there's the second option: your political operatives leaked this nonsense for the same reason your political operatives put out that commercial--to scare the gullible.

Obviously the correct answer, Mr. Bush, is all of the above.

There are some of us who could forgive you for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party's existence to "Death and Attacks Us."

It's cynical and barbaric.

But, after all, it may be merely the natural extension of the gutter politics to which you have subscribed since you sidled over from baseball, and the business world of other people's money.

But to forgive you for terrorizing us, we would have to believe you somehow competent in keeping others from doing so.

Yet, last week, construction workers repairing a subway line in New York City, were cleaning out an abandoned manhole on the edge of the World Trade Center site, when they stumbled on to the impossible: human remains from 9/11.

Bones and fragments.

Eighty of them.

Some as much as a foot long.

The victims had been lying, literally in the gutter, for five years and five weeks.

The families and friends of each of the 2,749 dead--who had been grimly told in May of 2002 that there were no more remains to be found--were struck anew as if the terrorism of that day had just happened again.

And over the weekend they've found still more remains.

And now this week will be spent looking in places that should have already been looked at a thousand times five years ago.

For all the victims in New York, Mr. Bush--the living and the dead--it's a touch of 9/11 all over again.

And the mayor of this city, who called off the search four-and-a-half years ago is a Republican.

The governor of this state with whom he conferred is a Republican.

The House of Representatives, Republican.

The Senate, Republican.

The President, Republican.

And yet you can actually claim that you and you alone can protect us from terrorism?

You can't even recover our dead from the battlefield--the battlefield in an American city--when we've given you five years and unlimited funds to do so!

While signing a Military Commissions Act so monstrous that it has been criticized by even the John Birch Society, you told us, Mr. Bush, "there is nothing we can do to bring back the men and women lost on September 11th, 2001. Yet we'll always honor their memory, and we will never forget the way they were taken from us."

Except, of course, for the ones who've been lying under a manhole cover for five years.

Setting aside the fact that your government has done nothing else for those five years but pat yourselves on the back about terror, while waging pointless war on the wrong enemy in Iraq, and waging war on the cherished freedoms in America;

Just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government, in time of crisis, in this country's history!

"These are the stakes," indeed, Mr. President.

You do not know what you are doing.

And the commercial--the one about which Zawahiri might say "hey, pretty good--we love your choice of font style"?

All that need further be said is to add three words to Shakespeare.

Mr. President, you, and that advertisement of terror, are full of sound and fury--signifying (and competent at) nothing.

Olberverse Reax

OlbyLoons

Blue Herald: "Here you go"

The World According to Kodos: just a link

Crooks and Liars: "arguably his most powerful Special Comment yet"

Daily Kos: "As usual, he hits it out of the park"

AlterNet: just a link

Clear-Thinkers

Newsbusters: Olbermann Unglued

Media Blog at NRO: "According to the dictionary, sophistry means 'A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.' For instance, using the definition of the word "terrorize" to imply that your opponent is guilty of "terrorism," as Keith Olbermann did last night in his latest deranged "Special Comment'"

Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (330) | | View blog reactions

330 Comments

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 8:53 PM

the olbytard is soooo jealous of Rush's popularity and viewership it is pathetic to watch him. If the olbytard had even 1/10th of Rush's viewership he would be happy.
Olby continues his free democrat party cheerleading. or is the DNC or somne other entity paying this goof ball to pimp for the 'rats?

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:02 PM

Whoever has a big, fat file on big, fat buffoon Olby can unleash it any time now.

By Scott on October 23, 2006 9:05 PM

No, he instead calls the Republicans terrorists. Wouldn't that be KO engaging in the same politicizing of fear he just spent almost 15 minutes condemning?

But of course, that is a KO public service. It couldn't be hypocracy.

And how is it that Bush gets blamed for the failures (again) of NYC regarding 9/11. Oh yeah, the governor of NY is a Repub. And the mayor is a Repub.

Jesus Christ, KO, could you politicize 9/11 a little moer while you bitch about others politicizing 9/11? You hypocrit, sir.

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:06 PM

Special comments.....neededs a laugh track tonight.
The tan man has gone over the edge!

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:06 PM

Special comments.....needed a laugh track tonight.
The tan man has gone over the edge!

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:07 PM

Oh thast's coming- don't doubt it. after the elecions olbermann will get his comeuppance for his moonbat rants. He should be sippin retirement beers with another moonbat lefty- dan rather-liberal.
olberman is the new 'rat-pimp.

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:07 PM

Did he call Rush "Limp-baugh" or did I misunderstand him? Karma can be a bad, bad thing, Olby.

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:09 PM

Krazy Keith attacks....but you can't

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:09 PM

that's olbytard's feeble attempt at humor. he is so jealous of Rush and BillO it is pathetic.

By Last American Citizen in CA on October 23, 2006 9:09 PM

But KO's commentary and reporting is always so balanced. He always reports equally on the deeds and misdeeds of the Dems. as he does with the Reps.... yeah right. I have never seen such one sided reporting by someone who purports to be a journalist. I am by no means a Bush fan, for many other reasons aside from those reported by KO. His handling of the border, for one is a travesty and amounts to near treason, but will you ever see KO blast Bush on these points? I have never sem him do so, only on issues that conform to the platform of the Dem. party. His so-called news program is sickening to me, and his constant blathering only go to prove that some networks will put anyone on TV, ratings or not.

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:11 PM

Isn't his book just a lot of pictures of Bill O'Reilly and Rush.....isn't that boring 5 pages in???

By Last American Citizen in CA on October 23, 2006 9:11 PM

By Bill O'lielly on October 23, 2006 9:16 PM

That was a wonderful Special Comment.. Keith is god.

By Brandon on October 23, 2006 9:20 PM

But I thought you were an atheist?

By KarmaBitesOlby on October 23, 2006 9:25 PM

Rush LIMPbaugh?

Pot. Meet kettle.

By SteveMG on October 23, 2006 9:33 PM

Looks like our intrepid modern day Edward R. Murrow - aka Keith Olbermann - is following along:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

Pay special attention to Items #2 and #7, #8 and #9.

SMG

By Brandon on October 23, 2006 9:33 PM

And how exactly is President Bush responsible for the bones that were found this past week at the WTC site? I don't recall him being assigned to clean that up.

By Realist on October 23, 2006 9:40 PM

You poor sheeple are the ones that are misinformed. I really feel sorry for you that you are so rooted in your rhetoric that you are completeley blind to the truth. And that is what Keith Olbermann is telling you, the truth. I know it hurts, but don't you think it's time you finally took off the blindfolds and faced it?

By Colbert on October 23, 2006 9:41 PM

The conservatives are attacking Parkinson's sufferers now? Maybe the disease doesn't actually exist. Maybe Reagan was faking his Alzheimer's too so his wife could whine and moan about wanting stem cell research. It's time to put a stop to these liberal traitors now. God obviously wants Reagan, Fox, Ali, etc. to suffer and die. How dare we try to fight God's will?

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:48 PM

Steve, I don't get it! Those points are pretty much what the drive-by media will do, but I can't believe the writers cited are actually the authors of that article (i.e., I can't believe they admit to those tactics, even though they will use them). What gives?

By Missy on October 23, 2006 9:49 PM

By indierik on October 23, 2006 9:50 PM

I've yet to see any of you attack the actual substance of Keith's comments from tonight. I'm just seeing words like "moonbat" and phrases referencing his accused "jealousy" of Limbaugh and Bill O. Are you waiting for Johnny Dollar to hold your hand with the counterpoints or can anyone here think for themselves?

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 9:51 PM

Olby unfortunately chose to lie about his role in the Barack Obama "announcement" at the expense of his fellow NBC Newsers. That will go over well at 30 Rock.

By Brandon on October 23, 2006 9:56 PM

And Russert is in NYC tonight, being honored in fact. Hope someone clues him in to Olby's trying to claim credit for his scoop.

By Ohio Mike on October 23, 2006 9:56 PM

indierik,

Ok, I will bite...please do explain either of the following:

1.) Why no mention was made of politicizing terror when democrats used Bin Laden in their commercials.

2.) When Olby went through a laundry list of dirty political ads, there were a grand total of ZERO ads run by democrats. I mean, given that he is "apolitical", surely you could comb the entire United States of America and come up with examples from both parties????

I anxiously await your response.

By Puck on October 23, 2006 9:58 PM

I tuned in for "Special Comments For The Short Bus Crowd"

When he did that camera twist I end up on the floor laughing so hard I thought I'd bust a gut! That camera twist is piss in you're pants funny!

Rush LIMPbaugh? Alright somebody's gotta do it so it might as well be me......(Chuck Barris Gong Show Imitation)

Keith Olbermann's ratings are so bad!

HOW BAD ARE THEY?

I'm glad you asked.

Keith Olbermann's ratings are soooo bad.....Keith couldn't get arrested at an airport customs check with a suitcase full of CIALIS!!!!

BA..DUM..BUM!

By SteveMG on October 23, 2006 10:05 PM

Anon:
"Those points are pretty much what the drive-by media will do, but I can't believe the writers cited are actually the authors of that article (i.e., I can't believe they admit to those tactics, even though they will use them). What gives?"

It is amazing, isn't it?

Halperin is the political director of ABC News and he admits, implicitly, that his own network (as part of the Old Media) will favor the liberal line these last two weeks before the election.

One has to wonder: What is Mr. Halperin doing to prevent this bias from the news product that ABC is offering? Or is he just throwing his hands up and saying, "Yeah, this is what we'll be doing"?

Point #1 is particularly absurd: the contrast between the harsh news coverage of Gingrich versus the fawning coverage of Pelosi is so obvious that I can't believe that even the most partisan liberal would deny it.

SMG

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 10:10 PM

The Tan uses TERROR (9/11) to blame the repubs for useing TERROR.
The man is not right in the head...he is far far far left!

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 10:16 PM

KO takes his cues from Al "Stewart Smalley" Franken, which is why Rush was numero uno in the Worst Person segment again. I predict O'Reilly will make it on the list either tommorrow or Wednesday.

By logic4once on October 23, 2006 10:17 PM

Hello to all, Im new here and will hold off on ranting my opinion of Keith blowhard. But first I would like to know if anyone noticed something I noticed during tonights hour of Keith defecating at my television set.

I am the farthest thing from a conspiracy theorist and not a religous man so lets leave that out of it, but during Mr. Blowhard's infamous "Special Comment" I noticed a little subliminal propoganda. It was a clip of President Bush taking a stage somewhere and waving to a crowd while krazy was spewing his usual 'Bush = Terrorist' rhetoric, and I noticed what I thought at first was an Israeli flag. I nearly brushed it off being that I see Israeli flags often on television, before I noticed that it was no Israeli flag, rather a superimposed image of some sort, with a star of david in the center. It showed up on the bottom right corner of the screen. I wouldnt put anything past Mr. Blowhard and I was wondering if anyone else noticed this subliminal propoganda against Republicans and their ally in the Middle East. (I made this observation towards the end of Krazy's illogical rant that capped the show, and felt compelled to chime in on this awesome blog - take a look if you can)

By logic4once on October 23, 2006 10:18 PM

By mlong on October 23, 2006 10:21 PM

A month ago KO complain that Bush hadn't done anything to get ground zero rebuilt fast enough and now he blames him for not finding body remains..well if they rebuilt as fast as KO wanted they might never of found them..plus their still finding remains from the civil war so that doesn't mean anything.

Oh as someone with a Ex-girlfriend posting about his shortcomings making "limp" jokes about Rush might not be the brightest thing to do.

Also he shouldn't be saying anything about people making comments about a Womans looks since KO has a track record of attacking the looks of Women he doesn't agree with..and by the way Hillary's opponent has denied the charge.

I think KO's "special comment" was one of the cheapest shots I've seen so far from this jerk..one can only imagine what he's going to say on the eve of Nov-7 or more importantly Nov-8 if things don't go the way KO and the MSM have been working on making happen.

By Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker] on October 23, 2006 10:28 PM

===================================

Or Diebold.

By Missy on October 23, 2006 10:32 PM

Steve, thanks for the info. I guess you're right; Halperin sounds like he's just giving up and admitting their tactics.

----
So what did Rush do that made him "WPITW"?

By jp2 on October 23, 2006 10:33 PM

Does anyone else marvel at Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann, who probably buys his Cialis by the gross, casting aspersions at someone else's "capabilities"? Yikes, hasn't he ever heard of Karma?

Krazy, frenetic, bellowing like an auctioneer on speed...

Just some of the insults you provided. Clealy, you aren't familiar with the concept of Karma.
Also, you state that KO used a poor source for a story he ran with - yet in the same paragraph you link to an incredibly questionable story with one horrible source - CNS. Is this a joke?

Anyways, first and last time visitor. Thanks for the laugh.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 23, 2006 10:33 PM

What? no mention about the hillarious crawfish-impersonation pulled off by the administration in the past couple of days?

"We've never been 'stay the course', George (Stephanopoulos)".

Please; the White House has redundantly defined the political dichotomy as either "Stay the course" (good) vs "cut and run" (bad) for literally years now. - and now comes a flat denial that this has been the position?

Can you righties at least admit that this is a preposterous statement - made nephareous by the repetition among the inner party?

If it will help I will concede to one of your points: I found the focus on the WTC skeletal remains found recently to be spurious and overwrought. I thought Olbermann's analysis of the campaign of fear engaged by the Republicans stood on its own legs.

By JJ on October 23, 2006 10:40 PM

I lay odds that there's only two more Special Comments, at most. It's bad, it's really, really bad.

By Anonymous on October 23, 2006 10:50 PM

Someone please put a laugh track to the K-man's special....please.

By indierik on October 23, 2006 10:50 PM

Ohio Mike- you said you'd bite, but didn't. Instead of presenting some counterpoints that I asked for you hit ME with questions of your own.

But I'll answer your Q's:
"1.) Why no mention was made of politicizing terror when democrats used Bin Laden in their commercials."

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the Bin Laden commercials that I'VE seen were more or less telling the audience that Bush has diverted his efforts away from catching the world's #1 bad guy for this debacle in Iraq (post the youtube links if you can show me different. Serously, because I would like to know). The Republican adds have simply shown Bin Laden to scare you easily frightened folks into voting for the Republicans.

"2.) When Olby went through a laundry list of dirty political ads, there were a grand total of ZERO ads run by democrats. I mean, given that he is "apolitical", surely you could comb the entire United States of America and come up with examples from both parties????"

I can find NO examples of Keith claiming to be "apolitical". Zero. In fact by the stories he covers I think he makes it very clear where he stands politically. It's very unlike Bill O who claims to adhere to the "fair and balanced" motto and he constantly hammers libs and then all but gives the righties a "happy ending" at the end of the interview (see his interview with Bush for an example).

Now please, let me see you attack Keith's talking points without using the term "moonbat" in your diatribe.

P.S. Puck you're a reeeeaaaal riot. Next time finish your standup with "Thanks for coming. You've been a great audience. Oh and try the veal."

By Ohio Mike on October 23, 2006 10:56 PM

Quote from indierik:

"I can find NO examples of Keith claiming to be "apolitical". Zero. In fact by the stories he covers I think he makes it very clear where he stands politically."

Uh oh....here comes a laundry list of links proving otherwize, I have a feeling. If you honestly think that, I would be willing to bet that you have never seen one single interview (either in print or on television) where he is asked his political affiliation...because he has bristled at the thought of being labled a lefty in literally every interview I have seen, when asked.

By Scott on October 23, 2006 10:58 PM

So while KO is trumpeting the "I beat Tim Russert to the wonderful Obama news," did everyone miss that Obama made almost identical remarks when asked on Fox and Friends (forget if it was Carlson or McCollum who asked the question)?

That was Friday morning. Before Friday night, Keith.

(Turn to camera 3)You, sir, are either a liar or grossly misinformed. You are the most negligent "newsman" on the most poorly organized "news" network in our history.

(Turn back to Camera 1, feign holding back tears) Not everything is about you Keith. Find out what is really going on in the world before you trump "victories."

Also, is this really a "Special Comment" that is going to stir the electorate? Or even just the liberal base? Kind of a reach, associating a political ad with newly found remains from 9/11, and definitely politicizing and belittling the memory of that day and those who died.

Finally, do they run the "Special Comment" logo on the screen so that we can tell the difference between that segment and the rest of the show?

By indierik on October 23, 2006 11:04 PM

Another post from Ohio Mike and still no counterpoints to Keith's statement tonight. Hey Dollar and Cox can you please help this helpless dude out?

"I would be willing to bet that you have never seen one single interview (either in print or on television) where he is asked his political affiliation...because he has bristled at the thought of being labled a lefty in literally every interview I have seen, when asked."- Ohio Mike

Political affiliations and political leanings are two seperate things. I don't have a political affiliation but I'll admit to leaning left.

By Scot on October 23, 2006 11:19 PM

In case anybody missed it, indieerica lied about being in the military so there's no point in taking anything he says too seriously.

By indierik on October 23, 2006 11:23 PM

Yeah ok Scott. Because I didn't publish my name for all you wingnuts to see on this site that must mean I'm a liar.

Why don't you throw up your name (and addy, just in case you have a common last name like "Johnson") and hope I don't live near you.

By johnny dollar on October 23, 2006 11:32 PM

> Just some of the insults you provided. Clealy, you aren't familiar with the concept of Karma.

"Clealy", you are uninformed. It was not by accident that I capitalized the word.

By indierik on October 23, 2006 11:35 PM

scot I'm hitting the bed now. I hope to see your name and address in the comments section tomorrow!

By Kevin on October 24, 2006 12:10 AM

Keith is right to call out the traitor Bush and his fascist minions. You do realize that by supporting the criminal administration, you too are anti-American traitors (and that's the editorial 'you', applying to any and all who hate America by supporting the fascist usurpers).

So hate on, and be proud (I guess) that you're forming a new nation, just don't call yourself 'Americans', you've given up that right.

By Coward on October 24, 2006 12:20 AM

Kevin don't forget to add that these pussies are the king of cowards. What motivates them most to support criminal politicians like Rove and DeLay is their quick hysterical reactions to fear of being attacked by Islamists. The true terrorists are the Republicans! Strength is not shown throw the barrel of gun but the brians behind the the persons who order the shooting of that gun. This is something these coward pussies are too ignorant to understand!

By King of the Cowards on October 24, 2006 12:24 AM

"Why don't you throw up your name (and addy, just in case you have a common last name like "Johnson") and hope I don't live near you."

Typical trailer trash making threats out plain old frustration of being Limbaugh educated and raised by a man that mamma told him to call uncle. Typical uneducated coward that thinks big trucks and guns is what makes a man rather than understanding how to be father, son and brother to the people he shares his life with. Good old fashion hillbilly trash!

By Coward on October 24, 2006 12:29 AM

"Another post from Ohio Mike and still no counterpoints to Keith's statement tonight. Hey Dollar and Cox can you please help this helpless dude out?"

Note the request for back up from others who indierik can't handle himself. It is standard practice of a pussy coward to be bold in an environment where believes he has others to gang up with. Can't stand on his own two feet for two reasons - ignorance and cowardice!

By Scot on October 24, 2006 12:33 AM

Yea, i know, if i do this and i do that then you'll prove you were'nt lying about being in the military, heard it all before. You can try to shift the focus towards me all you want but it won't change the fact that you insulted thousands of real soldiers who are putting thier lives on the line every day by lying about being in the military.

By Bryan on October 24, 2006 12:43 AM

So because Olbermann doesn't have high ratings, he's not right about anything?

I'm glad I'm not stupid enough to believe that truth is determined by consensus.

The Bush Administration is terrible and the Republican Party has lost its way. It's time for change.

By Bryan on October 24, 2006 12:44 AM

So because Olbermann doesn't have high ratings, he's not right about anything?

I'm glad I'm not stupid enough to believe that truth is determined by consensus.

The Bush Administration is terrible and the Republican Party has lost its way. It's time for change.

By Paul on October 24, 2006 12:49 AM

What, another load of stupid-bricks fall on his head? This guy hasn't got the basic understanding that a six-year old has about what is or isn't a threat.

'The Edward R. Murrow of our day' one blogger I read called him earlier tonight. What a buffoon...

By Paul on October 24, 2006 12:50 AM

What, another load of stupid-bricks fall on his head? This guy hasn't got the basic understanding that a six-year old has about what is or isn't a threat.

'The Edward R. Murrow of our day' one blogger I read called him earlier tonight. What a buffoon...

By Coward on October 24, 2006 1:02 AM

"...about what is or isn't a threat."

One more "I'm afraid" comment from another coward. The entire success of the Bush/Rove crime syndicate is the use of fear mongering to keep the cowards supporting them.

By hit_escape on October 24, 2006 1:13 AM

Remember when the admiministration begged the media to NOT broadcast the terrorist tapes? They might be sending secret messages to sleeper cells. Now they use them for political commercials. Bin Laden couldn't be any more pleased. Probably wishes he could buy more air time for the RNC.

One of the scenes in the ad shows what appears to be a roadside bomb explosion from a high angle. Anybody know what that scene actually shows? If they exploited the death of an American or any other country's soldier for a polical commercial, there will be hell to pay.

Olbermann never actually says Bush is responsible for finding the human remains. He is just outraged that Bush is exploiting 9-11, once again, for political gain.

Tom Ridge even admitted that he didn't know why the hell the administration put out some of the terror alerts, so why should anyone believe this administration?

2,662 US deaths since "Mission Accomplished".

By Rico on October 24, 2006 1:17 AM

Hey Keith, thanks for calling a piece of American soil the "battlefield." But there is a down side to that, Keith. On the battlefield there are no civil liberties and no privacy rights. So stop whining about NSA wiretaps.

By Jess Garrison on October 24, 2006 1:22 AM

Rico,

You and the rest of your fascist little rightard club should do the world a favor and remove yourselves from the gene pool.

FOAD.

By Coward on October 24, 2006 1:26 AM

"So stop whining about NSA wiretaps."

Nothing a true conservative detests more than a politician chipping away at Americans privacy or worse the constitution. Only a Rush Limbaugh educated dumb ass would make a comment as seen above. Only a coward roles over and sits by while a the constitution our fore fathers fought and died for is trampled by this criminal White House crime family. NSA wire taps have no need to be done in the fashion Bush insists on doing it. The main goal is to increase the power of government - something a true conservative resists with every fiber of his being. But because we now live in the culture of cowards a--holes like you hand it all over out of fear. What you are not is a person of conservative values. What you are is a coward and pussy.

By billy on October 24, 2006 1:32 AM

Uh-oh---even the New York Times publuc editor says the Times was wrong --------funny this mea culpa appeared in Sunday's times---I guess the most hated man at ESPN must have been locked in his spray on tanning booth and missed it

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?ei=5090&en=53abf343d208208c&ex=1319169600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

By billy on October 24, 2006 1:32 AM

Uh-oh---even the New York Times public editor says the Times was wrong --------funny this mea culpa appeared in Sunday's times---I guess the most hated man at ESPN must have been locked in his spray on tanning booth and missed it

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?ei=5090&en=53abf343d208208c&ex=1319169600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

By toddrico on October 24, 2006 1:34 AM

"Except, of course, for the ones who've been lying under a manhole cover for five years."

It seems that it wasn't that long ago-Sept. 11 Anniversary, that Man Under Desk sitting at his desk w/ a superimposed shot of Ground Zero, Blamed Pres. Bush for there still be "that hole in the ground".
If the construction of the Freedom Tower and the adjoining buildings and Memorial park/museum were under construction the remains of the victims of 911 would have never been found.

So now i'm wondering is Pres. Bush moving too fast in building the Freedom Tower or is he moving too slow with that hole in the ground? Man Under Desk can be very confusing at times.

By Rob on October 24, 2006 1:35 AM

The only thing scarier than Osama Bin Laden and the Republicans showing the same in their political commercials is the pontificating bias media. Keith is such a Olbermoronn.

By Coward on October 24, 2006 2:11 AM

"The only thing scarier than Osama Bin Laden and the Republicans showing the same in their political commercials is the pontificating bias media. Keith is such a Olbermoronn."

How's this for a contridiction? Which came first the chicken or the egg? Does a faltering goverment exist in the absense of good media or bad? You think the media is this country is anything but a machine that serves big business? KO is a cry in forest compared to the rest of the garbage our media serves us like a child in a high chair. Sitting on the fence is the worste form of cowardice. Pretending to take a stand is just that - pretending. Pussy!

By M ike on October 24, 2006 5:26 AM

It seems to really bother most of you that a left leaning pundent dares to speak his mind about today's twisted, right wing world! Do you people really want a media with nothing but the Limbaughs, Hannitys, & the Foxes? How pathetic!

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 6:54 AM

The LOUD Looney left sure knows how to militarize and disrupt any website.
How many times do they need the Mission statement for this website repeated.

How crazed is the left?
Howard Stern has been critical of the Bush Administration . FOXNEWS advertizes on his Sirius station. Howard has said he watches FOXNEWS. The crazy Looney Left DEMANDS that he no longer take FOXNEWS money and stop doing commercials for them and curse him in e-mails and on the message boards to stop talking about FOX.

The left has complained about the dwindling of their rights yet are always looking to quell the speech of those they disagree with!

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 7:20 AM

There's Colbert at 9:41 PM with the religious bigorty.....again.....I'm not biting.

The Claire McCaskill ad is also an ad of fear. Mr. Fox clearly states, "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." The implication is that Senator Talent is stopping all progress that would end the suffering of Mr. Fox.

I won't even go to Olbermann's hypocritical rant against Limbaugh....However, to his special comment, three points about the hypocrisy over political ads:

1) Olbermann characterizes the republican ad thusly, "It may be the oldest trick in the political book: scare people into believing they are in danger and that only you can save them."

Why is stating fear that terrorism will get worse under the democrats not okay while the democrats use fear of uncured disease is endorsed by Mr. Olbermann?

2) The dishonesty of Mr. Fox is also an issue. Mr. Fox says Senator Talent opposes stem cell research. Mr. Talent opposes embryonic stem cell research and cloning of human embryos. Mr. Fox loses credibility by playing the old word game of propagandists.....misinformation. Why is misinformation okay with Mr. Olbermann and the liberals?

3) Images are powerful. This is where Limbaugh was going with the debate. Mr. Fox has advanced Parkinsons Disease and his symptoms are severe. The image of Mr. Fox suffering the ravages of disease is a tool to not only arouse sympathy but, with his words, inspire fear that millions of sufferers of thousands of diseases will be denied relief because of Talent's views. Pretty powerful, and pretty cynical. The republican ad also uses images that inspire fear and they get Olbermann's indignation. Why the hypocrisy?

Those like Keith Olbermann in the leftist camp must account for their fear mongering while calling foul on the opposition's tactics. The republicans don't whine about the ads, but I will because of the black pot/black kettle issue.

Leftists like Colbert and his ilk seem to not have ethics anyway, so the discussion of medical research ethics would be a waste of my time.

By olbermann non-fan on October 24, 2006 7:28 AM

pls check out my page http://www.myspace.com/olbermannwatch

By cee on October 24, 2006 7:43 AM

Hey J$.....Great minds think alike....my exact words from October 20, 2006 07:51 AM.....

"No, my friends, Special here is like how special is meant for, 'Special Education.' Set aside, different.....but for Olbermann, 'Peculiar' comes to my mind.....or even bizarre."

I forgot to call Olbermann speech his peculiar comments though in my last post....

Anon at 7:20 AM was me, cee.

By cee on October 24, 2006 7:44 AM

Hey J$.....Great minds think alike....my exact words from October 20, 2006 07:51 AM.....

"No, my friends, Special here is like how special is meant for, 'Special Education.' Set aside, different.....but for Olbermann, 'Peculiar' comes to my mind.....or even bizarre."

I forgot to call Olbermann speech his peculiar comments though in my last post....

Anon at 7:20 AM was me, cee.

By olbermann non-fan on October 24, 2006 7:47 AM

pls check out my page www.myspace.com/olbermannwatch

By olbermann non-fan on October 24, 2006 7:48 AM

pls check out my page myspace(dot)com/olbermannwatch

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 8:30 AM

Mr. Olby is running out of stuff to put on his comment. Anyway, nobody listens to him, his rating proves it. The government cannot ignore any threats, it had better let the public knows instead of ignoring them. People will pay attention, otherwise we won't catch that guy this time. The President is not flipflopping on national secruity, we are safe but not safer, have we been bombed the last five years, Mr. Olbermann, here is a fact, see it yourself. Lastly, the Federal government does not have any responsibility to Ground Zero any more, it is the city, the state, governemnt is always the last source, why don;'t you go to bug on Senator Clinton, she works hard, right? I am wondering did he told her husband that he once said that he won't vote for her even at gun point to his head. It is a fact.

If there is really something bad happened on Sunday, shall we all point the fingers to Mr. Olby, he said it is a hoax.

By Kurt Kissel on October 24, 2006 8:48 AM

Stuck in the Benelux for a couple of weeks of work and am largely Olbermann-less. Your site, with some critical, judicious editing, helps keep me posted. Many thanks. Only good news is I am also FOX-less, and as much as I like Olbermann, being without Hume's, Hannity's and O-Rally's smug, condescending rants is most welcome.

By Ohio Mike on October 24, 2006 9:28 AM

WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD CANDIDATE!!!

ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!

Some please alert Olby...just moments ago on the MSNBC Battleground America all-day coverage, they were discussing the recent Mason-Dixon poll results that came out today, and they had a graphic up on the screen for the Virginia race showing:

Webb (D) 47%
Allen (R) 43%

When, in fact, the poll shows the exact opposite....Surely Olby will name this tonight, given his past attacks on networks having juxtaposed information regarding the two parties.

I mean, he is "apolitical"...so, he surely will attack this uncorrected indiscretion.

By Ohio Mike on October 24, 2006 9:32 AM

WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD CANDIDATE!!!

ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!

Webb (D) 47%
Allen (R) 43%

When, in fact, the poll shows the exact opposite....Surely Olby will name this tonight, given his past attacks on networks having juxtaposed information regarding the two parties.

I mean, he is "apolitical"...so, he surely will attack this uncorrected indiscretion.

By Katie Turic on October 24, 2006 10:01 AM

For Keith a breakdown is pending
And soon his show will be ending
A host off his hinge
Past lunatic fringe
It's al qaeda he is defending

By codas on October 24, 2006 10:13 AM

I'm not scared by terrorism, I'm using my own common sense and I know enough when we get hit again a lot of these idiots on TV are going to have hell to pay.

Posted by: Brick at October 24, 2006 08:03 AM

I agree. If we get attacked again I will partly blame a lot of these idiots on tv. I will blame the Hannity's and Coulters and Limbaughs for supporting and promoting the wrong freaking war partner. All that money and all those soldiers that could and sould be gaurding OUR country are over in Iraq getting blown up. Does it ever dawn on you that Bush realy doesn't know what he is doing? You can ask what would the democrats do but that doesn't make what he is doing right. Don't blame Olbermann if we get hit. It will be because THEY are killing the wrong people. Name one terrorist that attacked us from Iraq prior to this war.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 10:14 AM

So if I have nothing to fear then I should feel safe, correct? Now that I am feeling safe, who should I thank, Bush?

By codas on October 24, 2006 10:31 AM

So if I have nothing to fear then I should feel safe, correct? Now that I am feeling safe, who should I thank, Bush?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2006 10:14 AM

huh?

By mike on October 24, 2006 12:01 PM

There is one thing in common with most of the anti Olby comments on this site, as well as most of the tired old talking points coming from the right these days - NO SUBSTANCE! It's all about faith, fear, and feelings with you people. The heck with logic, facts, and common sense. Several earlier posts have pointed out that there have yet to be any factual counterpoints to the issues raised by Keith in his commentary.

By mike on October 24, 2006 12:02 PM

By David on October 24, 2006 12:09 PM

I'm afraid Keith Olbermann has become the personification of a contagious disease running rampant thru the left-wing of the Democratic Party. The "Olbermeister" displays all the symptoms of an advanced case of BDS, also know as "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

To my knowledge, "Countdown" with the "Olbermaniac" is the only show on television that unabashedly and without apology spews forth the vitriol and hate towards the Republican Party, and George Bush specifically, which is normally found only in the domains of the conspiracy-minded far left wing blogosphere. One would have to be clearly unbalanced and completely out of touch with reality to somehow attach blame to President Bush for bones and remains recently found by construction workers five years after the 9/11 attacks. And yet Olbermann does by directly accusing Bush, "You can't even recover our dead from the battlefield - a battlefield in an American city -when we've given you five years and unlimited funds to do so."

If I were an executive at MSNBC, I'd put Olbermann on a five second delay and hire someone to man the kill switch every time this nutcase opened his mouth. Olbermann is loose cannon and his bosses should be very worried that someday he will start to ad lib from his prepared and approved text. Unlike the other Republican conspiracy theorist that precedes Olbermann, Chris Matthews at least has the sense to pose his allegations in the form of a question. The "Olbermeister" just ain't that bright.

By David on October 24, 2006 12:10 PM

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 12:11 PM

Strange...why criticize Olbermann over stating that Bush flip-flopped when that is exactly what he did? Over and over!

Frankly, if I were a terrorist, I would LOVE to have as an adversary someone who attacked a country that I wasn't even in. That is a special kind of moron...

By David on October 24, 2006 12:12 PM

I’m afraid Keith Olbermann has become the personification of a contagious disease running rampant thru the left-wing of the Democratic Party. The “Olbermeister” displays all the symptoms of an advanced case of BDS, also know as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

To my knowledge, “Countdown” with the “Olbermaniac” is the only show on television that unabashedly and without apology spews forth the vitriol and hate towards the Republican Party, and George Bush specifically, which is normally found only in the domains of the conspiracy-minded far left wing blogosphere. One would have to be clearly unbalanced and completely out of touch with reality to somehow attach blame to President Bush for bones and remains recently found by construction workers five years after the 9/11 attacks. And yet Olbermann does by directly accusing Bush, “You can’t even recover our dead from the battlefield – a battlefield in an American city – when we’ve given you five years and unlimited funds to do so.”

If I were an executive at MSNBC, I’d put Olbermann on a five second delay and hire someone to man the kill switch every time this nutcase opened his mouth. Olbermann is loose cannon and his bosses should be very worried that someday he will start to ad lib from his prepared and approved text. Unlike the other Republican conspiracy theorist that precedes Olbermann, Chris Matthews at least has the sense to pose his allegations in the form of a question. The “Olbermeister” just ain’t that bright.

By indierik on October 24, 2006 12:22 PM

Still more comments and still NO counterpoints to Keith's statement from last night. Do any of you have anything you can add without using terms like "moonbat", "loon" et cetera.

Another day on Olbermann Watch when the trolls beat down the regulars.

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 12:30 PM

Brick wrote: "Um, Mr. Brainwashed, we went to war with Iraq because they were in violation of UN Resolution 1441..."

Bull! Bush stated that he went to war because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He invaded without UN approval meaning that he would've been enforcing a UN edict without the UN...sheer idiocy, son...

Brick goes on to say: "All of the worlds intelligence agencies said Sadam had WMD no matter how liberals spin it saying GW lied..."

Wrong again. Think Downing Street Memo...think Valarie Plame...

"I was a Naval aviator and I grew up when you got your ass beat for being out of line. I know what it means to stand for something and to not question your superiors..."

Hey, Naval aviator! When did they allow spy planes to land in communist countries (like China)? From what I understand, they learn to ditch in the ocean until they can do it with their eyes closed. Talk about brainwashed...

Later, you talk about wiping yourself and feces. Pretty standard for neocons, son...

By Robert Cox on October 24, 2006 12:30 PM

indierik wrote:

"I can find NO examples of Keith claiming to be "apolitical". Zero"

Note to OlbyLoons. As a basic rule of thumb, always start from the assumption that if J$ or I state something about Keith that it is true. It will save all of us a lot of time and help you avoid be humiliated when we show you up. I am in a forgiving mood today so I am just going to tell you to read the FAQ and leave it at that.

==========

The idea that a reader would create a MySpace page is pretty cool. Maybe this will start a trend and we will see Non Factor and hit_escape My Space web pages linked via the comment link.

http://www.myspace.com/olbermannwatch

By Mike on October 24, 2006 12:40 PM

The comments above by "Brick" are scary at best. If there are many Americans this ignorant out there, our country has a sad future indeed. What Brick doesn't get is that WE, the people are SUPPOSED to oversee our government, and criticize it when we feel it is going wrong. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about...in other words, that is the true definition of patriotism. The fact that almost everything GW has done so far has gone tragically wrong does not seem to phase people like this. In the opinion of dim bulbs like "Brick", all of us should just shut our mouths and stampede alongside GW until we all go over the cliff.

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 12:43 PM

"Funny. I think the fact that the majority of America says liberals have no plan and that there campaign slogan "We're the other guy" is not working that great. In fact almost anything a democrat manages it totally F'dU. If you think Olby is speaking facts then, hell, you are needed in New Orleans. Hell, they may give you the key to the sewer or even elect you mayor. You definately have potential"

Actually, the majority of Americans want a democratic congress, son...

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006a.htm

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 12:48 PM

Johnny Dollar said:

"The Dow Jones again found the market hitting historic highs today,"

I already explained this on the post when the Dow hit 12,000 - adjusting for the weaker dollar, the Dow is worth LESS today than it was worth prior to Election Day 2000.

Here, I'll repost it (math courtesy of a fine poster at Fark.com):

"Imagine that on November 1, 2000, on the eve of the presidential election that year, you owned one share of each of the DJIA stocks. The Dow was then at 10,966, so your holdings would be worth $10,966. Imagine further that you had a crystal ball, knew that Bush would win the election, increase deficit spending, start an unnecessary war, etc., and you also knew about the 9/11 attack happening and Bush's response to it. You might say, 'this doesn't look good, I think I'll cash out my stocks,' call up your broker, and get a check for $10,966.

But let's say you were also smart enough to know that all of the stuff coming down the pike would be likely to trash the value of the American dollar. So that same day, you took your $10,996 and decided to open an account at a London bank and convert the money to British pounds. The exchange rate on that day was 1.4452 dollars to the pound, which means your $10,966 would have bought you UK£7,403 to deposit in that bank.

Now let's say that you read the news today about the Dow crossing 12,000, and decided it would be a good idea to get back in the market. You decide to buy one share of each of the DJIA stocks--this will cost you $12,000. If you wire transfer the funds out of your U.K. account, they will be converted at today's exchange rate of (as of this second) 1.8843 dollars per pound. That $12,000 would translate to UK£6,369. You would still have UK£1,034 (US$1,948) left in the account, meaning that it cost $1,948 less to buy those stocks today than what you sold them for when the Dow was "lower" in November 2000, because translated to a more stable currency, the Dow is actually 1,948 points lower today than it was in November 2000."

By cee on October 24, 2006 12:52 PM

indierik,

I posted early this morning (Anon 7:20am) refuting Olbermann's selective indignation.....When a news person comments on someone's behavior, they try to speak from a position of moral authority. If you think Mr. Olbermann has a morally superior position to comment on the tactics of the republican political machine then you are deluded. My three points show clearly that Mr. Olbermann is not an equal opportunity critic of fear ads, as has J$ and Robert in sedative detail.

Any intelligent observer would be hard pressed to believe that a commentator who throws words around like, "fear," can be believed when just 5 minutes before, he was in support of a TV add that will be seen by millions of disease sufferers that inspires fear over evil powers stopping cures. Not to mention, Mr. Fox lied.....Senator Talent is not against Stem Cell Research, he is ethically against using embryonic stem cells and cloning. Are you for cloning, indierik?

I won't even get into the NFL issue.....Robert covered this canard very well....Olbermann is the only loon discussing a conspiracy over the announcement of the stadium threat.

Do you have any other defense of Olbermann's Peculiar Comment?

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 12:55 PM

"Actually, the majority of Americans want a democratic congress, son..."
first of all what's with the "son" bit moron? do you think of yourself as some kind of stoic southerner? What little liberal fantasy world do you live in leftard?
and actually no the majority of americans do NOT want democratic congress or they would have vote so since 1992. Maybe you should try speaking only for yourself there pilgrim and admit that YOU want a democrat congress. the majority of Americans are smarter than you pilgrim.
funny how the republicans are now closing the gap in polling numbers. the people who actually conduct the polls don't want to look like fools again when republicans keep control og Congress.
so pilgrim blindrat you had better keep your opinions to yourself or come elction day you will end up loking like a bigger fool than you already do. you really are a blind rat anitcha?

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 12:55 PM

"Actually, the majority of Americans want a democratic congress, son..."
first of all what's with the "son" bit moron? do you think of yourself as some kind of stoic southerner? What little liberal fantasy world do you live in leftard?
and actually no the majority of americans do NOT want democratic congress or they would have vote so since 1992. Maybe you should try speaking only for yourself there pilgrim and admit that YOU want a democrat congress. the majority of Americans are smarter than you pilgrim.
funny how the republicans are now closing the gap in polling numbers. the people who actually conduct the polls don't want to look like fools again when republicans keep control of Congress.
so pilgrim blindrat you had better keep your opinions to yourself or come elction day you will end up loking like a bigger fool than you already do. you really are a blind rat anitcha?

By Scott on October 24, 2006 12:57 PM

Don't look or KO or MSNBC to acknowledge the mistake they made in posting the VA Senate race poll numbers. The m.o. at MSNBC is to criticize other networks. In combination with their many taped reports from NBC News and their "doc block" that way they don't have to worry about covering any news themselves.

And if KO was truly objective, he'd name himself WPITW for trying to steal the spotlight from Tim Russert on the Obama story, or Chip Reid for coming on MSNBC to talk about the "Tom Foley"/page sex scandal, also uncorrected.

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 12:58 PM

Brick,

It is hard to believe that an engineer would have trouble with polls. Perhaps you aren't an engineer. Perhaps you are one of those pretend engineers like "library engineer" or "garden engineer". Since you didn't respond to my question about Bush's spy plane gift to red China, I am begining to wonder if you were a Naval aviator...

Think, son...

Gore was ahead in the 2000 polls and he got the majority of the vote. Kerry was ahead and they found that millions of votes from democratic areas were thrown away...

If you must reject mathematics, why did you become an "engineer", son?

By Mike on October 24, 2006 12:59 PM

Well Brick, you are WRONG again. I served my country honorably in the military between 1969 and 1973. Vietnam remember...the perfect analogy for the mess Mr. Bush has gotten us in today. Go Keith!

By cee on October 24, 2006 12:59 PM

BTW, I am still formulating an amusing yet factual rebuttal to Olbermann's stupid rant about the ground zero issue.....oh boy, what a silly assertion....

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 1:00 PM

Mike,

That won't impress Brick. Neocons don't like Vietnam veterans...

By johnny dollar on October 24, 2006 1:01 PM

> adjusting for the weaker dollar

Funny, nobody talked about adjusting for the weaker dollar when gas prices were at so-called historic highs, or when the budget deficit was huge, or when talking about the "rising costs" of health care. But let the Dow go over 12,000, and all of a sudden we have to adjust for inflation.

Olbermann doesn't care about inflation. He doesn't report the Dow because he doesn't want to report any news that might detract from his constant Dem propaganda fest. I didn't hear Herr Olbermann dismissing sky-high gas prices by adjusting them for the weaker dollar to show they really weren't anywhere near an all-time high. Now you're defending his not reporting economic news based on inflation adjustments that he himself has refused to use in the past.

I'm sorry that you have decided to defend this slovenly political hack, and in doing so have sunk to his level.

By Mike on October 24, 2006 1:01 PM

Well Brick, you are WRONG again. I served my country honorably in the military between 1969 and 1973. Vietnam remember...the perfect analogy for the mess Mr. Bush has gotten us in today. Go Keith!

By indierik on October 24, 2006 1:13 PM

"I know what it means to stand for something and to not question your superiors."- Brick

I know where Brick is coming from- he really means that you do not question the leaders of this country . . . unless he/she's a Democrat.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 1:24 PM

Johnny Dollar said:

"I didn't hear Herr Olbermann dismissing sky-high gas prices by adjusting them for the weaker dollar to show they really weren't anywhere near an all-time high. Now you're defending his not reporting economic news based on inflation adjustments that he himself has refused to use in the past."

Johnny, there's a difference between inflation (which is what you use to describe gas prices) and currency fluctuation. Inflation is caused by the government printing more money or more money going into circulation, which decreases its inherent value. Currency fluctuation is caused by people having lower confidence in our dollar holding value over the long or short-term.

Currency fluctuation affects the stock market but not gas prices. Inflation affects gas prices but not the stock market. The two are mutually exclusive from each other.

By johnny dollar on October 24, 2006 1:53 PM

I don't care whether it's fluctuating currency, inflation, or barometric pressure. It's a phony argument to suddenly start adjusting prices because the Dow hits 12,000, especially as a weak desperation defense of Olbermoronn for deliberately not covering positive economic news. If he could cover high gas prices, why doesn't he cover them when they're low? If he could report on the stock market sinking, why does he refuse to report on it soaring? Because he's a slovenly political hack, that's why.

By blindrat on October 24, 2006 1:56 PM

Hey Brick!

You still haven't responded to my aviation question. I know the answer and so do you. My dad flew with a VP squadron during Vietnam and they would've NEVER ditched in a communist country. Why run from that question, son?

Yeah, son, I took DiffE. I have a BS in Chem Eng and a Master's in Mathematics. I know that polls have to meet certain criteria or they are invalid. To call a properly done poll "liberal" shows your ignorance of mathematics, specifically statistics...

I smell BS from you, child. You must be about twelve, 'cause you cannot spell and surely have no idea what you are talking about...

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 1:58 PM

If the Dem's can so easily be lied to and tricked by the evil republican how can we ever trust "the lets hold hands and counsel the bad guys" Democraps to defend our nation against the Islamic-terrorists.
Sorry I have to vote Repub bub.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 2:03 PM

Johnny Dollar said:

"I don't care whether it's fluctuating currency, inflation, or barometric pressure. It's a phony argument to suddenly start adjusting prices because the Dow hits 12,000, especially as a weak desperation defense of Olbermoronn for deliberately not covering positive economic news."

Then you are just as bad as you claim Olbermann is because you reject basic economic theory to promote your agenda of attacking him.

Hypocrite. Go back and take Econ 101, Johnny Nickel (after all, Dollars don't go very far anymore).

By LawStudentSteve on October 24, 2006 2:04 PM

Hey Dad (aka RAT)- glad to see you're back! How'd your CAT scan go?

For those of you who don't know Rat- he likes to come in, spew nonsense, name-call, and then repeat. Got that?

*Spew Nonsense
*Name Call
*Repeat

He comes here, because the liberal sites don't allow posts - you know, those champions of "free-speech" really don't want anyone who disagrees with them to post a contrary idea. So, Rat comes here. Where he can-

*Spew Nonsense
*Name Call
*Repeat

Go to have you back, Dad- although, I am jealous that you called Brick "son", I thought you reserved your liberal condescension just for me.

By LawStudentSteve on October 24, 2006 2:07 PM

Go to have you back = GOOD to have you back, Dad!

By Brandon on October 24, 2006 2:30 PM

And when really lost, insult spelling/grammar of posters and somehow imply you are intellectually superior to them, no matter how dumb and pointless your "arguments" are.

By codas on October 24, 2006 2:36 PM

I was a Naval aviator and I grew up when you got your ass beat for being out of line. I know what it means to stand for something and to not question your superiors. I don't question anything GW is doing.

Posted by: Brick at October 24, 2006 12:17

For on thing you called me "codunbass". Were you trying to say dumbass? Oh well, work on that. For another thing the fact you were Naval aviator doesn't make your judgements right. If you don't question anything GW is doing than you have a problem with what being an American is. You don't question authority at all? You just rise for the flag salute and trust in what "blindrat" rightly calls "a special kind of moron". I respect people who served in the military but I don't make heroes out of most of them because a heroe is a rare thing. If by following orders they become robots, they are just toy soldiers in someones "a special kind of moron" game. I would hope that someone who was brave enough to fight a war would be brave enough to tell his incompotent leadership to go to hell. I know there are those people out there.

By cee on October 24, 2006 2:38 PM

Olbermann says,

"You can't even recover our dead from the battlefield--the battlefield in an American city--when we've given you five years and unlimited funds to do so!"

From The Miami Herald http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/5min/15833215.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_5min

"Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler, who is overseeing the renewed search, said a review of [search and rescue] issues would be premature, but noted that the fire department was designated as the lead agency for finding remains, and that the design department proceeded with its work only when the fire department gave the go-ahead. The design department had no comment.

"According to the two officials, fire department rescue workers were among those who resisted the Department of Design and Construction. However, fire department spokesman Frank Gribbon said Monday that reports of objections were exaggerated. Chief of Department Sal Cassano said in a statement that the fire department `had final sign-off on areas where the recovery effort was deemed complete, and at no time was pressured to say otherwise.'"

First....the search was ended in 2002 by decision of New York City's Department of Design and Construction.....Not even a state agency.....not a federal agency!

Secondly, should Mr. Olbermann impugn the fire fighters who state clearly they thought areas were cleared of remains? No, and I would not either. Should Mr. Olbermann impugn the volunteers who sifted through 10 stories of crushed debris to find the smallest token of the loved ones who died on 9/11? No, and I would not either.

But to skip all of these fine people to the President of The United States and erroniously state he personally failed the families is so illogical, it is ridiculous. Incompetence is a strong accusation, and I find it difficult to claim incompetence with regards to the fine men and women who worked those many months at ground zero let alone the president.

Wow.....what an idiot.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 2:41 PM

Neocons; With folks like "brick" speaking for your cause, we don't really need any "Liberal" posts, or even Olby to make our case. Lets see, within 3 posts, he stated we were "whiners", Dixie Twits, liars, guilty of treason, and that we should "crawl up Mike Moore's hairy as". Hey Brick; Don't you think the Neocons could use a spokesman other than one whose only weapon is hurling insults and false assumptions about his phantom "enemies". However, he clearly was correct when he stated that he is "not the smartest bulb in the country".

By the way Brick, since you claim you are a veteran and falsely asserted that I am not, I would really like to see a poll among true veterans to see how many support GW's war. I really believe that most are too smart for that.

As far as KO is concerned, I personally like his slant. It really is a refreshing change from the timid mainstream press as well as the Fox bias. For me, it is a daily refuge from the right's unrelenting onslaught of talking points that are impossible to escape during the course of any given day. Yes, Keith is our "Hannity", but with a lot more brains!

By codas on October 24, 2006 2:42 PM

Wow.....what an idiot.

Posted by: cee at October 24, 2006 02:38 PM

Good thing you didn't sink to the level of calling him a fool huh cee.

By cee on October 24, 2006 2:49 PM

Hello? Any Olbermann apologists want to defend his Peculiar Comment? Hello?

By indierik on October 24, 2006 2:57 PM

"No, John Kerry Heinz lost because he is a liar and he is no more a war hero than Mike Moore is a brain surgeon."- Brick

And Bush served honorably? Brick since you've served you know one thing- people you've served with will remember you even years later. So why is it NOBODY stepped forward when Bush's service in The Guard was questioned? Not a soul.

By cee on October 24, 2006 3:05 PM

idiot: an utterly foolish or senseless person.

My post seems to support my classification of our dear Mr. Olbermann...at least his behavior last night.

How about the substance of my argument, codas?...BTW, I was trying to be cute at the end.

By LP on October 24, 2006 3:14 PM

My favorite part of this site is that it is completely filled with ad hominem attacks and childish nicknames.

By cee on October 24, 2006 3:15 PM

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
but delights in airing his own opinions."
Proverbs 18:2

Thank you codas for making me contemplate Olbermann's behavior in his Peculiar Comments over the past month. It reminded me of the above passage.

By LawStudentSteve on October 24, 2006 3:18 PM

PLEASE- its been almost 30 mins... someone PLEASE call us "neocons" again!!!!

Its sooooo cool!

By Mike on October 24, 2006 3:28 PM

OK cee, what part of Olby's "peculiar comment" would you like to see defended. I agree with his comments, therefore I need to know what point you are are refuting? I think he stated his case very well, so tell us what it is you think is so "peculiar"? From where I stand, it seems that you people just can't stand to see someone speak out against your hero. Isn't that the whole point of this web site? What those of us on the other side cannot figure out is why this GW could possibly be anyone's hero?

By LawStudentSteve on October 24, 2006 3:33 PM

Actually, Mike- this site is devoted to unmasking the hypocrisy of Keith. He claims to be "non-partisan" when he clearly is not. He claims his shows one of "hard news" when it clearly is not. He screams (nightly) about how the administration tries to scare us- then goes about scaring us with his own rhetoric.

No matter who is in the White House, OW is to shine the light of truth onto the orange face of Keith Olbermann...

By anonymous on October 24, 2006 3:43 PM

And when really lost, insult spelling/grammar of posters and somehow imply you are intellectually superior to them, no matter how dumb and pointless your "arguments" are.

Posted by: Brandon at October 24, 2006 02:30 PM

Is Keith Olby here, sounds like him?

By cee on October 24, 2006 3:47 PM

Mike,

see 2:38 PM

see 12:52 PM

see 7:20 AM

And Olbermann claims.....

"Setting aside the fact that your government has done nothing else for those five years but pat yourselves on the back about terror, while waging pointless war on the wrong enemy in Iraq, and waging war on the cherished freedoms in America;

"Just on this subject of counter-terrorism, sir, yours is the least competent government, in time of crisis, in this country's history!

Mmmmm, "nothing but...." A pretty grand statement. Nevermind the simple truth that there has been no successful terrorist attack within the borders of The United States. Nevermind that people are free to travel into and out of this country without fear of death or detention. Freedom of speech is more alive and well than ever.....a fierce pre-election day debate is waging at this very moment. Incompetence looks pretty good, Mr. Murrow-of-our-generation!

"Pointless?" The point of the Iraq conflict is to establish a democratic government in Iraq. Seems like a goal. Wrong again, Keith.

"Wrong enemy?" There have been Al Quada operatives captured and killed in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his sons were self pronounced enemies of the United States and their government was in violation of multiple UN resolutions. Who is are enemy if these fine fellows weren't, Mr. Olbermann?

Anything I missed, Mike?

By cee on October 24, 2006 3:56 PM

"...waging POINTLESS war on the wrong enemy"

From AP

"Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), told supporters that a federal system with only loose central control would prevent the return of dictatorship.

"'Federalism will guarantee that the injustice of the past will not revisit our children nor our grandchildren,' Hakim said in a speech for the Eid al-Fitr holidays marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"Iraq's post-Saddam constitution, passed by referendum in October 2005, describes the country as a 'democratic, federal, representative republic' but a decision on what kind of federal system to use has yet to be taken."

Mmmmm...doesn't sound pointless to me. Those poor, poor people if Bush sides with the cut-and-runners.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 3:58 PM

cee said:

"Nevermind that people are free to travel into and out of this country without fear of death or detention."

How soon we forget Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was arrested at JFK airport in New York, detained and tortured for 10 months in Syria before he was released, and was accused of being an al-Qaeda operative before the government realized that they had been given inaccurate information from the Canadians. In fact, Arar is still barred from coming to the United States even though he has been cleared of all accusations against him.

"The point of the Iraq conflict is to establish a democratic government in Iraq."

Which is the third (or is it fourth?) justification offered for this, and considering that fully 3/4 of Iraqis want us to go away...I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement for Western action.

"Who is are enemy if these fine fellows weren't, Mr. Olbermann?"

Osama Bin Laden jumps immediately to mind, followed by the rest of his al-Qadea leadership (NONE of whom were in Iraq).

By LawStudentSteve on October 24, 2006 4:08 PM

Annon said: "al-Qadea leadership (NONE of whom were in Iraq)"

Really? Al-Zarqui wasn't there? We didn't kill him? There were NO al-Qadea training camps in Iraq? Really?

And you talk about going after Osama as if you'd actually support it. If TOMORROW, we found out exactly where OBL is- and blew him up, you and you kind would complain that we caused too much collateral damage, or if we captured him- you'd want his "civil rights" protected.

Your battle cry (as with the rest of the libs) would be- "Send in the ACLU- they're trying Osama without a lawyer!"

By detroyeroflyingdemonuts on October 24, 2006 4:08 PM

poor little MSNBC at 1449 on this day is getting all pissed about ad's being run in Tennessee, bet you demonuts can't spell it, concerning another corrupt demonut that enjoy's cheating on his family. Another O'D working for NBC-MSNBC spewing lie's about a republican and that fatboy Chrissy is spewing all the libs crap. You demonut's have nothing but welfare to play on hoping for a commie society. Just remember you are the first in any commie society to get the first bullet. We are the first to destroy your commie soceity. tHus we are still breathing and fighting and you demonut commie lover's are either dead or begging to be reeducated once again. I have yet to see one of the oberjoke mouth piece's on here say they would be happy to live in Cuba, North Korea, Iraq (under the clown man), Iran and why is that?, because the are coward's and only a jackass would doubt that. Even they know the demonuts know they are jackasses, why else would they have a jackass for their party symbol.

By cee on October 24, 2006 4:11 PM

Hey Anon.....

Olbermann claims "least competent government in history." You attack my rebut....try DEFENDING his original statements....I remember FDR interning THOUSANDS of Japanese Americans for several months compared to your one accidental canadian detainee....a pretty big difference in, "competence."

Olbermann said, "POINTLESS." You say the points or goals have changed....but at least you admit there are points for us going into Iraq. And with regards to the polls......I guess we should just withdraw and then see what the polls say six months from now when the bulk of the country is run by pro-Iran shia.

Same with, "wrong enemy." OBL and his close group have not been captured, so that means there are no other enemies of the United States .....again....go back to Olbermann's statement...they are false accusations.

By detroyeroflyingdemonuts on October 24, 2006 4:14 PM

poor little MSNBC at 1449 on this day is getting all pissed about ad's being run in Tennessee, bet you demonuts can't spell it, concerning another corrupt demonut that enjoy's cheating on his family. Another O'D working for NBC-MSNBC spewing lie's about a republican and that fatboy Chrissy is spewing all the libs crap. You demonut's have nothing but welfare to play on hoping for a commie society. Just remember you are the first in any commie society to get the first bullet. We are the first to destroy your commie soceity. Thus, we are still breathing and fighting and you demonut commie lover's are either dead or begging to be reeducated once again. I have yet to see one of the oberjoke mouth piece's on here say they would be happy to live in Cuba, North Korea, Iraq (under the clown that let his son's fight while he coward in a hole like a good demonut), Iran and why is that?, because the are coward's and only a jackass would doubt that. Even they know the demonuts know they are jackasses. Why else would they have a jackass for their party symbol.

By cee on October 24, 2006 4:26 PM

All I hear is crickets....chirp...chirp...chirp.

By indierik on October 24, 2006 4:33 PM

"Really? Al-Zarqui wasn't there? We didn't kill him? There were NO al-Qadea training camps in Iraq? Really?"- Student

Yeah, Al-Zarqui was there, but he wasn't exactly staying at one of Saddam's palaces like wingnuts like to think. Where is your evidence that Saddam was knowing/willingly harboring him?

And Student where were those training camps? They were located in the zones of the country Saddam wasn't allowed to go. Where is your evidence Saddam held some type of "Terrorist tryouts" in the Baghdad Colisieum?

And why do I have a feeling that I will someday drive by a billboard saying "Have you been hurt in an accident? If so call Law Student Steve."

By dependentrichard on October 24, 2006 4:44 PM

God Bless Kieth Olbermann, the Alfred E. Newman of our generation!

By Mike on October 24, 2006 4:46 PM

Cee:

Well gee, where do I start?

(1) - "There's been no successfull terrorist attack in 5 years": So, exactly What is your point here? Prior to 911, there had not been a successfull terrorist attack for 8 years on US soil (1993-2001). To imply that us invading Iraq has decreased the potential for attacks here is lunacy and cannot be supported with facts.
(2) - "Wrong enemy": Yes, wrong enemy....unless you believe it is our duty to invade the country of every despotic dictator in the world. Somehow, I think there are some practical limitations to that approach, as Iraq is now proving. The problem is, that after Vietnam, we should not have had to learn that lesson again!
(3) - "There have been self pronounced members of Al Quada captured in Iraq": Yes, AFTER we invaded, they felt compelled to come and fight us there. Thsi argument is a half truth that only works on the uninformed. Yes, Saddam was technically our enemy, but Al Queda was not his friend either. So now, we have effectively cleared him out of the way for Al Quada. Since when is doing exactly what the enemy wants us to do good strategy?
(4) - "the point of Iraq is to establish a Democratic government": Don't you think they should have told us this was the goal BEFORE the invasion? All we heard anything about was the false assertions of WMD and their so called connection to 911. I personally voted for GW partially based on his opposition to nation building in 2000. Talk about flip flopping!
(5) - "Most incompetant government in history in a time of crisis": Correct again! Have you read "State of Denial"? If you have, do you dis-believe everything you have read in that book? Even many on your side believe serious mistakes were made in Iraq that may have cost us the chance of "Victory", whatever that is.

Yes, Cee. Olbermann is correct. You may want to continue with your faith based confidence in this government, but many of us just don't share this faith. I just pray we get another leader before we face another major crisis. I don't know if we can survive any more GW solutions.

By the way, are you at all concerned about the incredible cost of this war?. Does it concern you at all that China is financing us heavily and already owns a tremendous share of our debt? I personally fear China far more than I do the Islamic extremists. Of the over 10,000 seriously wounded in this war, doesn't it concern you that the cost of taking care of these deserving veterans for the rest of their lives will be tremendous burden on our economy for the next 50 - 60 years?

I could go on and on, but is that really necessary?

By Sire Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 4:56 PM

Brick sez:

"Get it". We haven't been hit in over 5 years. Five years. There has to be a reason especially since we have clobbered the crap out of them and made them madder that a nest of yellow jackets"

What was Osama's SOLE DEMAND in regard to the US both prior to and following the 9/11 attacks? Anyone?

Well, it was that we remove all of our trrops and military bases from the "Land of the Two Holy Places" (aka Saudi Arabia). And that was it. He made demands on Israel in regard to hte occupied territories, but for us it was our military presence in his holy land.

Now; What did Bush do early in 2003? Anyone?

Well, He removed all of our troops and military bases from Saudi Arabia!! He then went ahead and used these military assets to crush the regime of Al Qeada's hated "socialist secular" adverdsary, Saddam Hussein.

You bumblefucks, we haven't been attacked by Al Qeada because we've capitulated! Entirely and abjectly. Two years ago! - and you idiots don't notice because we're still killing olive-comlected people, just in the wrong fucking country.

Your president is a fool and a coward who is being run by amoral war-profiteers who couldn't give rat's ass how many Americans die, as long as our tax money keeps their mark-ups sky-high.

By dependentrichard on October 24, 2006 4:56 PM

yes, mike, please do....don't leave out the indierik's spy plane to china that we "gave" them

By Mike on October 24, 2006 4:56 PM

Wow Cee!

In your last post, you used "demonuts", "fatboy", "commie", "oberjoke", "coward", & "jackasses", all in the same post...sometimes more than once.

I had actually credited you with having a little class. Sorry - my mistake!

By dependentrichard on October 24, 2006 4:56 PM

yes, mike, please do....don't leave out the indierik's spy plane to china that we "gave" them

God Bless Kieth Olbermann, the Alfred E. Newman of our generation

By indierik on October 24, 2006 5:01 PM

dependent- Give credit where it is due. I didn't make any reference to a spy plane.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 5:05 PM

I've scanned this list of posts, and still don't see any of the fascist tools owning up to the fact that Bush really has been all about "staying the course", and that he only recently said "we've never been 'Stay the course', George(Stephanopoulos)".

How do you people reconcile your honor as Americans with your being the blind drones of a lying, equivocating trust-fund brat?

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 5:05 PM

LawStudentSteve said:

"If TOMORROW, we found out exactly where OBL is- and blew him up, you and you kind would complain that we caused too much collateral damage, or if we captured him- you'd want his "civil rights" protected."

No, dumbass. If I knew for sure that we'd killed OBL I'd cheer from the rooftops.

However, I also understand that if WE kill him on the battlefield, he absolutely becomes a martyr to the Jihad. Better to capture him alive, try him for 9/11 and then fry his sorry ass. At least then there's less chance of him being a martyr.

By "The Exhaulted Keith Olbermann" on October 24, 2006 5:06 PM

Typical republican Terror tactic:

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=oj-EAMgZWtE&eurl=http%3A//www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725109/posts&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static3.sjl.youtube.com/vi/oj-EAMgZWtE/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIEIflFDiQWo1ofPqSSDStW

By johnny dollar on October 24, 2006 5:08 PM

Wow Mike! Maybe if you read more carefully you'll see Cee didn't say what you say Cee said.

By cee on October 24, 2006 5:09 PM

Mike,

No, Olbermann is wrong. See my previous post to Anon regarding the points originally made by Keith Olbermann. His hyperbole and exaggeration is not based on fact. "Incompetence," Olbermann's word, in the war on terror is absolutely supported by no repeat of 9/11 and the current normality of our lives here on US soil. Stick to what he said, Mike, don't add to his argument because he didn't make any of the points you did.

"To imply that us invading Iraq has decreased the potential for attacks here is lunacy and cannot be supported with facts." Neither can the opposite be supported with facts so what's your point?

Wrong enemy.....Violation of UN resolutions, many thought Saddam had WMD, and he supported suicide bombers in Gaza and The West Bank. Now there are terrorists in Iraq and they need to be fought. You admitted that they are there, so there is some progress! Also, if we abandon the poor Iragis to the fundamentalists, Al Queda will have a safe haven..wow, you see that also...more progress.

"State of Denial" classic, "arm chair quarterbacking," and what I have defined as, "would-a, could-a, should-a," whining. Deal with the present, Mike and what the results of the left's demands would be on the Iraqi people, the Middle East and our country.

Please go on, it's better than silence.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 5:14 PM

By the way; don't listen to Pelosi that there won't be any impeachment - she just doesn't want the shrieking batshit-storm that you freaks would unleash if she'd said "maybe".

What we're going to do is to investigate - something that hasn't been done in five years. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their loyal corps of castrati will end up in prison, or perhaps executed for treason. Most of us in thie country will stand for nothing less once the tales are told (in deposition) and the double account books are opened.

By cee on October 24, 2006 5:15 PM

(1) Mike posted:

Wow Cee!

In your last post, you used "demonuts", "fatboy", "commie", "oberjoke", "coward", & "jackasses", all in the same post...sometimes more than once.

I had actually credited you with having a little class. Sorry - my mistake!

....My repsponse....where?

(2) Oh, nice to hear from you Sir Loin...hold on a minute.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 5:16 PM

I am curious what "zones" Saddam was afraid to go into.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 5:19 PM

"'To imply that us invading Iraq has decreased the potential for attacks here is lunacy and cannot be supported with facts.' Neither can the opposite be supported with facts so what's your point?"

cee, what about the opinion of all 16 US intelligence agenies who concur that our occupaton in Iraq has strengthened international terrorism - Al Qeada membership has increased from 20,000 in 2003 to more than 50,000 today.

and, I reiterate, we have not been atacked by Al Qeada because we in 2003 acquiessed to Osama's sole demand of us - cut and run from Saudi Arabia.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 5:27 PM

"I am curious what "zones" Saddam was afraid to go into."

well, for one the semi-autonomous Kurdish territory around Kirkuk, in the northern part of his country - coincidentally, the same region in which Zarqawi was suposed to have been hiding out in.

By Mike on October 24, 2006 5:27 PM

Cee:

I firmly believe in dealing with the present, but to correct any situation, you have to understand how you got there, avoid repeating mistakes, and deal with those who steered you wrong in the first place. This principal is applied within any successfull business. So why is it wrong to hold our government accountable for monumental mistakes?
When you predict a terrorist takeover if we leave Iraq, you cannot back this up with fact. It is simply a prediction. Since they have been so wrong in all of their other predictions regarding Iraq, why should we place any stock in this one? This is nothing more than a repeat of a current Republican talking point. Last, but not least, there is no factual substance to the claim that they will "follow is here", if we leave there.
As far as enforcing the UN resolutions - that is really a thin argument. The UN chose not to enforce there own resolution. Why was it then up to us to do it for them, at our own great peril and expense?
By the way, I wasn't just parroting Olbermann's points. I was also making my own. I just don't substantially disagree with anything that he said.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 5:28 PM

"I am curious what "zones" Saddam was afraid to go into."

well, for one the semi-autonomous Kurdish territory around Kirkuk, in the northern part of his country - coincidentally, the same region in which Zarqawi was suposed to have been hiding out in.

By cee on October 24, 2006 5:29 PM

Sir Loin,

Bush answered Stephanopoulos's question the same way he addressed his critics back in 11/05:

From United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland 11/30/05

Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course." If by "stay the course," they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by "stay the course," they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by "stay the course" they mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him." Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy.

The part of the ABC interview you referenced:

BUSH: The government is — look, I think the guy's been in office for about four months, Maliki. In my judgment, Maliki has got what it takes to lead a unity government.
But what you're seeing is a new form of government actually beginning to evolve after years of tyranny.
I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. And I'm not patient with dawdling. But I recognize the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run.
On the other hand, we'll constantly adjust our strategy to…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Exactly what I wanted to ask you about, because James Baker said that he's looking for something between cut and run…

BUSH: Cut and run and.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … and stay the course.

BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been stay the course, George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics, constantly.
.....
I'm not deluded Sir Loin, you are.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 5:30 PM

cee,
I will respond to any messages later tonight - I have wood to split before dark.

By Mike on October 24, 2006 5:33 PM

Cee:

In looking back over previous posts, I may have accidently accused you of making a post someone else made. If so, I apologize for that.

By indierik on October 24, 2006 5:36 PM

I am curious what "zones" Saddam was afraid to go into
Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2006 05:16 PM

Oye. I was referring to the No Fly Zone imposed on Iraq help set up by the U.S., the UK, and yes, France, to end the Kurd conflict. It actually worked very well- the Kurds stopped getting killed by bombs and chemicals. Also, I didn't say Saddam was "afraid" to go into these zones, I said he "wasn't allowed" to enter these zones. Please try to pay attention.

By Colbert on October 24, 2006 5:51 PM

Cee,
How is what I said religious bigotry? You're just mad that I demolished you in the other thread. By the way, if quoting entire passages from the Bible equals bashing it, something is wrong with the Bible.

1. More Americans died from Islamic terrorist attacks under Bush than under Clinton. More died under Reagan than under Clinton. The facts don't support only Republicans can keep us safe.

2. Experts on stem cell research agree (that doesn't include you so don't embarrass yourself with lies) use of embryonic stem cells is needed. Talent is against using embryonic stem cells which is holding back research and possible cures.

3. No, Limbaugh claimed the severe symptoms are the result of acting or not taking medication. What's your point? Should we hide all sick people in a dungeon somewhere? That way no one can see them? No one will know disease exists? Your brainwashing gets undone when presented with facts, Cee? You only realize soldiers have died in Iraq if "traitors" list the names or photograph the coffins? You only realize Parkinson's is bad if you see a sufferer?

You brought up ethics, Cee. I'd like to adress ethics and morals. What do you think about Rush being divorced three times and seeing some young girl? What do you think about Reagan being divorced? What about Newt serving his dying wife with divorce papers? What about Henry Hyde having an affair and excusing it by claiming it was in his youthful 40's? When Clinton had an affair, or did anything, you claimed it made everyone else act immorally. Doesn't the powerful Republicans' shoddy moral behavior harm our society at all?

By cee on October 24, 2006 5:56 PM

No prob, Mike.

First, your point about the UN reinforces my point that the supporters of fundamentalist islam's goals knew full well that they could ignore those same resolutions. The resolutions did state force would be used if there was violation, and no one at that present time said Hussein was in compliance....the opponents of force simply said they thought more negotiation could occur. Many well respected intelligence sources thought there was WMD in Iraq as well.

Also, you did not dispute the fact that Saddam supported fundamentalist islam through his financial influence in Gaza and The West Bank for suicide bombers. The liberal canard that Saddam and OBL were enemies ignores their mutual hatred of Jews and their supporters. Sir Loin knows my views about that one. Fundamentalist muslims want Israel destroyed and a pan-islamist middle east. I do contend that a deserted Iraq will contribute to this goal, you are right there.

By Colbert on October 24, 2006 6:04 PM

Dumb-as-a-Brick,
The Homeland Security Department admitted it was a hoax Thursday. An official said it seemed like a hoax Wednesday. No one was in danger, even if real, until Sunday. So why did they bother to publicize something, they suspected and soon knew was a hoax, as a real threat? Any moron who checked the NFL schedule knew the "plot" didn't make any sense. All bombs were to be set off simultaneously at games with different starting times? The terrorists can hijack planes and fly them into buildings but telling time is beyond their abilities?

"I don't question anything GW is doing." Of course not. You'd need a brain for that. You better go back for more brainwashing. "Stay the course" is no longer operative.

By cee on October 24, 2006 6:09 PM

Wonderful! My favorite poster, Colbert, joins the conversation. Did you not read my last post addressed directly to you Colbert? Your provocative attacks on my religious beliefs are sine qua non of your secular humanist religion.

I was trolling over at HuffPo and thought of your empty philosophy as I read the latest post by intellectual hero, Richard Dawkins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

Please....anyone who really wants to see the true spirit of the left in this country (and the real democartic party) and what they think of people who believe in God, go to this lengthy article and try to digest it. Colbert's buddy has ALL the answers!

Oh, Colbert, one more thing....What is your opinion of Senator Obama?

Your other points.....I'll deal with them later.

By Colbert on October 24, 2006 6:19 PM

Cee,
Jefferson called religion superstition. Most of the Founders would be considered secular humanists by you religious whackos. Go to Iran. They have your preferred form of government. People can have individual beliefs without forcing them on others. Let's say Lieberman becomes President. Should we all have to abide by Jewish dietary laws? Your paranoia about secularists is out of control. When's the last time you were arrested for going to church or reading the Bible?

I don't know much about Obama but I like what I've heard him say so far.

By Brandon on October 24, 2006 6:20 PM

Doesn't seem like Olby's Special Comments are pulling them in like they used to. Nielsen ratings from last night, from insidecable.blogsome.com:

8PM - P2+ (25-54)
O’Reilly Factor – 2,301,000 viewers (546,000)
Broken Government – 772,000 viewers (316,000)
Countdown w/ Olbermann – 669,000 viewers (249,000)
Conversations w/ Eisner – 177,000 viewers (67,000)
Nancy Grace – 410,000 viewers (145,000)

By cee on October 24, 2006 6:33 PM

Hello? Colbert? Did you read my favorite libs blog...Dawkins?

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 6:35 PM

It seems to me that Christians have realized recently that they can make demands on the government. Not saying if this is good or bad. Christian churches realized they were a very good at grass roots political organization (get out the vote). Recent news articles have reinforced this concept, e.g. the christians gave Bush the election.

By Robert Cox on October 24, 2006 6:36 PM

Ratings will be up across the board. Normal people do not begin to look at the elections until two weeks before. So, folks are just now tuning in to the kind of stufff we follow every day.

Based on my experience, the real test of KO's ability to sustain his recent bump will be in the month after the election. In 2004, his numbers dropped by about 40%. This year will be interesting because Keith has so clearly aligned himself with the liberal Democrats. If the Democrats win the House and/or Senate and become "energized" you may well see Keith retain his audience. If the GOP hangs on you could see Keith's numbers suffer a drop similar to what happened in 2004.

Since this is as good a place as any to say it let me go on record now by saying I think the Dems are likely to be disappointed with the result of the upcoming election. I am going with the Dems picking up 8 House seats and 4 in the Senate. In other words, gains but not enough to gain control.

By cee on October 24, 2006 6:46 PM

But accodring to Senator Obama, he has a personal relationship with Jesus which you so quickly dismissed....how can you like what he's been saying, Colbert?

By lightning on October 24, 2006 7:00 PM

I think it's funny to read the right-wing's rabid response to Countdown. It just shows how great an impact KO is having playing with their minds. It's wonderful to see the reaction of those who worship the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush to someone who does the same type of broadcast/show except from an opposite political point of view. I feel a lot more informed and comfortable listening to KO than any of the others.

By Brandon on October 24, 2006 7:30 PM

Impact? Uh, no. More like a buzzing sound akin to a fly that is about to be squashed, you know, much like Olby is in the ratings everynight.

And if you think Olbermann's show is "informative", you really do need to broaden your news sources.

Thanks for the ratings analysis Bob. It will be interesting to see what happens to Olby's ratings post-election for sure.

By Anonymous on October 24, 2006 7:49 PM

I see dee-dee-dee colbert has returned as stupid and ignoratnt as ever, and now showing how truly dumbe he is reagarding American history.

Gee what's next colbert you gonna tell us all the founding fathers were homos too?
you are so ignorant colbert how do you even feed yourself?
you have been gone for awhile and I had hoped you had gone out and played in traffic but alas i see you have returned and saying your usual leftard stuff and trying to show us all how totally ignorant of history you are.
it figures you would like osama bin obama- he is your type of liberal - and I'll bet you even believe in your sordid delusional mind that he has a chance to be president! you moron colbert.

By cee on October 24, 2006 8:18 PM

Colbert,

I will argue the easy point first.

Jefferson said the following when he declared the Sedition Act unconstitutional. (BTW, he did this without consulting the Supreme Court or Congress, and set free those previously imprisoned, because he believed every branch has the right to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit, and that any law that overthrows an Unalienable Right is NOT a law....wow, where's Olbermann's Peculiar Comment about that act of a dictator?)

"I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I considered and now consider that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as my duty to arrest it’s execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image. … On this I am not afraid to appeal to the nation at large, to posterity, and still less to that Being who sees Himself our motives, who will judge from His own knowledge of them, and not on the testimony of a Porcupine or Fenno."

Wow, what wonderful, biblical imagery from the founder of the democratic party! Mmmmm, sound like he thinks there's a God too!

Colbert, stop talking about things you do not know. I am sick of responding to your uneducated and intellectually lazy propaganda.

How about that Dawkin's article? Boy, this present day, godless democratic party sure would have surprised Jefferson, uh Colbert?

By cee on October 24, 2006 8:22 PM

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

Benjamin Franklin, a statement he made at the Constitutional Convention,
on June 28, 1787

By cee on October 24, 2006 8:31 PM

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."

Alexander Hamilton's last dying words, July 12, 1804

And boy, WAS he a sinner.....just like Rush, Rep Foley, Reagan, Bush and all of those nasty republican hypocrits Colbert mentions!

"This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."

Patrick Henry in Last Will and Testament, November 20, 1798

Great guy, Mr. Henry....true patriot...brave too.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

James Madison The Father of the U.S. Constitution

Mmmm, there are those bad rules again, eh Colbert?

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge The Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."

George Washington October 3, 1789 Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanks

This could have been from a speech given by Bush!

And this next one should get you really angry, Colbert:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!"

John Adams, 1756

Mmmmm, the bible endorsed by John Adams....bad boy!

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Daniel Webster

Those founders....such secular humanists!

And finally, Colbert, a more recent opinion.....

"Our Laws and our Institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

U.S. Supreme Court, 1892 decision

Who's that Redeemer? I can't seem to remember His name.

By codas on October 24, 2006 8:51 PM

cee.
you like the bible right? How's this.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [Matthew 5:21-22, King James version]

By ZZ on October 24, 2006 9:11 PM

God bless America... what would we do without websites like this one? Please do my a favor and get a life. Mr. Robert Cox.

By Colbert on October 24, 2006 10:02 PM

Cee,

You must be joking. Your James Madison "quote" is madeup. "Editors of The Papers of James Madison, John Stagg and David Mattern, referred all inquirers to a letter dated November 23, 1993, in which Mr. Mattern wrote concerning the alleged quotation: 'We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private.'"

Henry was against the Constitution. Adams, Hamilton, and Webster remained Federalists. At least the first two wanted to be dictators. The Supreme Court in 1892 wasn't involved in our founding. Jefferson would be shocked to find out someone thought he was devoutly religious. Of course he'd be shocked and appalled people like you are Americans. Benjamin Franklin moved to open the Constitutional Convention each day with a prayer and it was voted down. Washington, with many others, was a Free Mason. Ask Pat Robertson what he thinks of them. Many were also Unitarians. They did not believe Christ was the son of God.

I'll write more later but I already thoroughly debunked your garbage. You'll probably run away in this thread like the last thread.

By indierik on October 24, 2006 10:28 PM

This thread has been going for a complete day now, with many comments. As I go back over the what the Keith Bashers have said I see about enough counterpoints to his statements last night to fill a thimble. I'm going to conclude that the bashers cannot debunk his thoughts, but just hate the man for being correct on an administration that cannot be defended.

Gnite . . . oh. . . and good luck!

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 10:32 PM

'To imply that us invading Iraq has decreased the potential for attacks here is lunacy and cannot be supported with facts.' Neither can the opposite be supported with facts so what's your point?"

and, I reiterate, we have not been atacked by Al Qeada because we in 2003 acquiessed to Osama's sole demand of us - cut and run from Saudi Arabia

By Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker] on October 24, 2006 10:39 PM

Not only that, but te poll on Olbermannwatch.com's main website shows equal footing amongst Olbermann's NBCU 2.0 figures. Equal 45% showings! Polls are one of our greatest means for finding honesty :-)

B. "Countdown to Cancelation" 45%

D. "No impact" 45%

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 24, 2006 10:51 PM

cee; you are deluded.

"stay the course" doesn't mean anything - that's why the administration used it as their motto for three years. The laundry list Bush gave to Stephanopoulos in 2005 (that you provided in your post)to episodically frame "Stay the Course" for that moment in time today highlights the disasters that this administraton has led us into. Afghanistan, listed by Bush as a success, today is generally agreed upon as having been lost to the resurgent Taliban; Iraq HAS become the training ground Bush used as worst-case scenario.

When has this administration changed anything? OK, the planes have started using much steeper and more hazardous approach patterns when landing at the Baghdad airport, in order to avoid ground fire; vehicles have (slowly; ever so slowly) had their armor increased in reaction to greater numbers of stronger, more precisely directed IED's; things have stopped being built outside of the Green Zone; entire regions of the country have been abandoned to insurgent control...

But by any relevant measure, these people have never changed a thing in regard to their obtuse strategy of occupation - and Bush reminded us at every opportunity: : "Stay the course! We will stay the course! We must stay the course"

By cee on October 25, 2006 5:49 AM

Colbert,

"thoroughly debunked your garbage" Anyone without a dog in this fight agree with that one?

Other than Madison (I'll deal with that lie later), you have absolutely no rebut to the actual quotes of these fine, God fearing men. You totally ignore that Jefferson, who did something under the new constitution that you and the godless, elite liberals would scream about, ignored and reversed a LAW on his own. And what did he use for justification? His own belief and the idea that any law that goes against the natural law put down by God was not a law. You are dense.

"Jefferson would be shocked to find out someone thought he was devoutly religious." Mmm, you talked to Tom lately? Great way to respond to his very Bush-like behavior as an executive.

You see, Colbert, Jefferson was a very complicated and conflicted man....much like the silly members of the party he founded today. He went back and forth on things depending on the situation. I have no idea if he had a personal relationship with Christ.....However, it is clear he knew a lot about the bible, it influenced him, he believed in "the sky fairy" as you hateful atheists call Him, and he used the great truth when it suited him. Go deeper than, "religious," Colbert...I'm getting bored with you.

I'll address the rest of your stuff later...codas and Sir Loin are waiting, I'm sure. But one thing....what about Dawkins and Obama, Colbert? Who do you agree with? Is there a, "sky fairy?" Please let us know what the true blue democrats are all about.

By cee on October 25, 2006 6:16 AM

codas,

Did you read my post regarding Dawkins and Senator Obama? Do you understand the influence Dawkins and his supporters have on the left of this country? Read the comments at HuffPo after Dawkin's article and see the real conflict between secularists and those that have faith. Your allies in this debate (Sir Loin and Colbert)seem to want to address the hateful advice of their intellectual mullah. It was eye opening to me.

I am sorry you feel compelled to misapply Matthew 5:21-22. In my heart, I do not hate any of these posters, or Mr. Olbermann for that matter. Their ideas and attacks on my beliefs require a response. Mt characterizing their arguments as hateful or foolish in no way means I would physically attack them if they were sitting right here with me. I love Olbermann, Colbert and Sir Loin, they have been created by Jehovah and He loves them. I wish them no harm.

Take a look at http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/4407.html

for the application of Matthew 5 to the human heart codas. Thank you for reminding me of it because if I venture into anger and want to hurt these people, I am guilty of murder, just like our Christ said.

By cee on October 25, 2006 6:19 AM

indierik,

Another nonrebuttal. No, I think the length of this post shows much regarding the errors of Olbermann's Peculiar Comment. I know I can't convice you that, but I accept it.

Sir Loin,

Not enough time now to address your claims. I have to go to work. I'll try to post later.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 6:37 AM

cee,
You ARE guilty of murder, just like me, codas, Colbert, etc. We are members of a society whose constitution gives them control of their government's actions, and as such we bear the responsibility for the children cooked by white phosphorous and incindiary rockets in Falluja, for the deaths of entire families shot to pieces at pop-up checkpoints across Iraq; and for the innocents blown up by suicide bombers in the chaotic markets of Iraq.

Next time you see them; ask Matthew, Jesus and God how they feel about your support for our Military Industrial Complex that picks this kind of horrendous, unjustify=iable fight for corporate profits.

By cee on October 25, 2006 8:09 AM

Sir Loin,

Brief response....

So do you believe in God? I thought you said you were an atheist. Anyway, if you are referring to Matthew 5, then yes, I have in anger wished in my heart harm to people. I have lusted after women. So Jesus rightly judges me as murderer and adulterer. And he will judge all, the living and the dead, for the sins they have committed.

So, if you would like to explore Jehovah's judgement further, seriously - and not just as a rhetorical weapon, I would be glad to discuss it with you, and Colbert. But if you are going down that same path, as Colbert has, of religious bigotry....no thanks....I'm not taking the bait.

Later.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 8:47 AM

cee,

Your bloody-handed piety enrages me. Fuck "Jehovah's further judgement" - it is just a sheild you carry around to protect yourself from reality-based arguments and to deflect any earthly responsibility for crimes facilitated by your political franchise.

In referrence to your previous discussion regarding the founding fathers, religious views -it is entrely irrelevant. We have a constitution wholly anathema to religious dogma.

Certain individual founders would pull it out as you do - as a buffer from criticism in day-to-day legislating - or as a charlatan's trick to put a superstitious constituency at ease - but it explicitly has no official role in our government. Just as slaveholding Jefferson gave us the constitutional framework by which the odious institution of slavery could be demolished, the occasionally preachy Jefferson also made sure that wanton superstition would not easilly pollute our political system.

But in regard to Jefferson's beliefs, you are ignoring one of his more interesting extra-curricular projects: his compilation entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". Basically he took a bible and cut out all of the passages regarding the statements directly attributed to Christ and pasting them in sequence within a new volume - eliminating all of the hocus-pocus and bureaucratic abridgement that makes that damn book so thick. What he was left with was a secular/socialist manifesto concerned with treating fellow humans with kindness, generosity, and compassion. Jefferson considered this to be his Bible, even though he on a personal level did scarcely better than you at following its admonitions.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 8:53 AM

tell me, cee: Do you anticipate the Rapture in your lifetime?

By cee on October 25, 2006 9:41 AM

Sir Loin,

I can't seem to convince you that I know I am an absolutely horrible human being. But I have lots of company....and that is another issue.

Jefferson's bible has been a passing interest to me. I did not mention it because it was not relevent to Colbert's assertions. Colbert was asserting that Jefferson was not, "religious." I was asserting that, although the atheist Colbert is comfortable with that line of argument, he cannot deny the fact that Jefferson was prone to using the bible and the truth to justify his behavior and worldview...whether it was as the author of the Declaration or as the chief executive. Jefferson's struggle with the supernatural is indicative of a seeker and I hope he found what he was looking for. God bless him!

Your angry replies illustrates my point. Without the recognition of God, you become exacerbated with my point of view. This reaction is why I have referred all to read the Dawkin's post at HuffPo. He is very clear that people who hold my beliefs are dangerous and should be stopped. Okay, where does this line of reasoning leave the world? Right back where you all get upset about people killing or hurting other people based on their convictions.
How ironic.

Codas has been silent regarding this point as well.

I truly believe what I have been posting and do not say these things to buffer me from responsibility or from feeling guilty. I am guilty and ultimate judgement awaits. I asked for a serious discussion and I did not get it so no more about that.

Lastly, Christ answers your question in scripture:

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

I could also have a blood clot in my brain burst right now and kill me as I am writing this sentence and the same result would occur.....So, simply stated, yes.

By cee on October 25, 2006 9:51 AM

Oh, one thing I forgot:

You say, "What he was left with was a secular/socialist manifesto concerned with treating fellow humans with kindness, generosity, and compassion."

No, in addition to those things you mention, he was left was also left the rants of a crazy jew who claimed to be the son of god and had authority to forgive sins. If Christ was not entirely as He is put forth in The Gospels, from immaculate conception to resurrection to ascension....He was a lunatic that should have been treated with antipsychotic medications. And I would admit myself a fool for believing in Him.

By codas on October 25, 2006 10:00 AM

Without the recognition of God, you become exacerbated with my point of view. This reaction is why I have referred all to read the Dawkin's post at HuffPo. He is very clear that people who hold my beliefs are dangerous and should be stopped. Okay, where does this line of reasoning leave the world? Right back where you all get upset about people killing or hurting other people based on their convictions.
How ironic.

Codas has been silent regarding this point as well.
Posted by: cee at October 25, 2006 09:41 AM

I read some of it. I have said many many many many many times. I am not an atheist. There are ways of looking at the bible and God that differ from your I am sure you would agree. An American has a right to practice their faith and take it to the voting booth. I have a right to disagree with anothers interpitation of scripture and politics. I also feel I am guilty in part for the inocent that are killed "and not all are innocent" in Iraq. What kind of nation claims Gods blessings and lets murder happen everyday. My problem isn't with beliefe in God, my problem is justifying attacking a country that did not attack us. The ones that bring up the united nations resolution are the same ones who say we shouldn't let them determine our policy. If another country believes that we use that as a reason to attack them. How nice. And how Christian of us.

By Anonymous on October 25, 2006 10:26 AM

codas,

I have known you are not an atheist for weeks now.....My point was that the modern democratic party is run by a power that is hostle to faith. The far left of this country that has been most caustic has hijacked the party of T. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

The whole back and forth above regarding the founders is a struggle for the very history of faith in our country. Colbert wants to rewrite history to fit his worldview. Sir Loin derides the belief and even suggests I have some motive for my beliefs. And you remain silent, as a believer. Fine. That's your choice.

By Anonymous on October 25, 2006 10:34 AM

Oh, Colbert...I mentioned Andrew Jackson just now. Guess what this wonderful democrat said?

"That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests.”

Mmmm, what a bad man!

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 10:35 AM

"If Christ was not entirely as He is put forth in The Gospels, from immaculate conception to resurrection to ascension....He was a lunatic that should have been treated with antipsychotic medications."

...or he was a poet who tried to convince a society of people accustomed to seeing power, forgiveness, and transcendence as always being the purview of others - either civil authorities or supernatural forces - that we all have these qualities at our disposal, and have the responsibility to use them for the good of our fellow humans.

....or he was an activist/comedian, who through the ironic declaration that he - an eating, shitting, farting entity - was "the son of God" was trying to convey that everyone else might as well be considered so too, and that only with this realization are true empathy and social justice possible.

cee, for someone who's thoughts are so often floating in the ether, the options you permit your mind are harshly circumscribed.

By cee on October 25, 2006 10:41 AM

Anon x2 was me.

Also, with regards to Madison.

James Madison was no modern day liberal.

Gun control...

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”

The federal government...

“The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular states. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter.”

More to come, as well as dealing with the quote.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 10:46 AM

Andrew Jackson was a bastard - he slaughtered thousands of Creek women and children mercilessly, and later sent the "five civilized tribes" packing on the trail of tears, despite the firm and just resolution of the supreme court that this massive land-grab/ethnic cleansing was not constitutional.

There's your political Bible-thumper for you.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 10:55 AM

"James Madison was no modern day liberal."

Liberal? You equate huge Federal bureacracies with and governmental power-grabs with Liberals?

Open your fucking eyes, cee - the Federal Government has skyrocketed under Bush. How many new agencies? How many new Departments? How much foreign debt incurred by the Federal Government under this president? Madison also said: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Its also the very definition of the Bush adminstration.

By codas on October 25, 2006 11:17 AM

My point was that the modern democratic party is run by a power that is hostle to faith.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2006 10:26 AM

I think your wrong. The Democratic party may be hostile to a version a faith that wants to legislate itself as the law of the land. Also, saying "one nation under God" in the pledge or posting the ten commanments in front of a courthouse is not "The Faith" in my eyes. There is nothing stopping you or any American from believing in God or loving your neighbor, do unto others, preaching the gospel, gathering in a church, studying the Bible, or praying at anytime anywhere. Did Christ say you must always pray outwardly in front of others so that they may see you? No he didn't. He said close the door behind you and pray in secret. This is not a Christian nation. It is a nation made up of Christians and other faiths. Don't buy into the victim game cee. If you believe in God, why do you need permission from the government to practice your faith? The Republican party has been using your good intentions to follow Christ as a wedge issue to stay in power. That is a fact whether you want to believe it or not.

By cee on October 25, 2006 11:27 AM

Sir Loin,

According to scripture, Jesus said,

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58

They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
Luke 22:70

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mark 14:62

And Matthew is even clearer in what Jesus claimed.....

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.

In the Jewish law, it was blasphemy to claim yourself, "Jehovah," or, "I AM." In the hebrew texts that are translated into english, LORD (all caps) was the same: "Jehovah," "I AM." Lord without all caps would be anyother use of the english word. Jesus specifically says He is God. This recognition of the special, "I AM" is the beginning to realize that Jesus was Christ...the same God mentioned by Moses in The Torah (Genesis, Exodus), mentioned by Joshua, mentioned by David, mentioned by Isaiah, mentioned by Daniel and mentioned by all of the other Jewish prophets.

There was no other reason a Jewish man would make a claim to be God, Sir Loin. As you can see, it was punishable by death. So, back to my original conclusion.....he was either God incarnate, or a crazy man....based on the only available evidence we have.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 11:30 AM

...Ok; you're right. I concede fully to your argument. Jesus "was a lunatic that should have been treated with antipsychotic medications".

By cee on October 25, 2006 11:36 AM

codas,

Quit looking at me, I am not the one buying into the secular humanism clothed as faith put out by people with their own agendas. I trust in God only, not man's wisdom, and in no way feel I am a victim. You mischaracterize what I have been saying. The Dawkin's article clearly states that all belief in a, "sky fairy," will stop human progress to a peaceful world. Do you believe this? I am asking you codas, not me, you? Then take a look at the rebuts flourishing on the HuffPo site from, "the tolerant," trying to marginalize the great thinker, Dawkins. The religious bigotry crys out to the objective reader. Then, look at how the Christ believer Senator Obama is portrayed. Let me know what you think.

IMHO, it is religious bigorty in the party you so quickly defend.

By cee on October 25, 2006 11:54 AM

Sir Loin,

As a Christian, this is the basic fact of the faith. People calling themselves Christians that do not recognize this are deluding themselves. It is a travisty becasue even "leaders," of churches have taken away Christ's deity for the more comfortable poet, pal, surfer dude, peacemaker, lover, etc. He is all of those things, with respect, but in the end, he is God....I AM. This is my statement of faith as a Christian.

By codas on October 25, 2006 12:07 PM

I trust in God only, not man's wisdom, and in no way feel I am a victim.
Posted by: cee at October 25, 2006 11:36 AM

What does it mean to trust in Gods wisdom, not mans? If you don't feel a victim, why do you consider the democratic party a threat to faith?
Is it Gods wisdom to put your trust in the military or his divine will? You want it both ways I think. You are not a pacifist and yet you trust not in mans wisdom. So you must believe that it was God that told Bush to attack Iraq. It was his wisdom to shock and awe. Not mans wisdom. It was Gods wisdom to have the republican majority rule over a deficit and a war we can't get out of. Bush is only the tool of his divine will. It has nothing to do with mans wisdom that this country has freedom of religious faith being expressed in the church of your choice. Mans wisdom leads only to what? Peace? Or war? The sky fairy is not what I pray to, and I don't feel threatened by people that believe he is what I pray to. That is their issue, not mine. You think only democrats are hostile to faith? There are many Republicans who don't share your faith but they know how to keep your vote. If you think their isn't religious bigotry in the republican party, maybe I could ask James Dobson what he realy thinks of the Catholic Mass, or Mormons. They hide behind the "people of faith" slogan, but they don't share mine. Freedom of religion is what I believe in. They are entitled to theirs, as you are to yours. That is not being hostile to religion, but respecting it.

By cee on October 25, 2006 1:03 PM

codas,

When wars are waged, they are decisions based on fear of conquest. You and I diasagree on the response to the threat fundamentalist islam poses. Do I think George Bush considered all of his options prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Yes, I think he did. This is all a war of man's doing because of his evil nature, free will. Whether or not God approves no one should claim that knowledge. But simply stated, your freedom is being maintained through the activity, just like Sir Loin implied many posts ago.

Eternally, I only trust in what the scriptures say, and that goes back to truth you and I already have parted on. How you reconcile the Christ you have created with the Gospel passages I put out (to Sir Loin in his request I water down Jesus to yet another wise man), I'll never understand.

Lastly, you refuse to see the animosity that exists in secular society to the saacred and holy. Until that time, I believe you will just continue to trick yourself into thinking you are good enough for a perfect God.

Codas, either there is a God in reality or there is not. Accepting the concept of freedom of religion (which I whole-heartedly do BTW), will never address that question. It is the one thing Dawkins and I agree on. And you still won't address his point of view!

By cee on October 25, 2006 2:09 PM

Colbert:

In response to your 10/24 10:02 PM post:

The Madison quote has been questioned, no evidence that it was made up. And there are other parts of his life and quotes that support his belief in the Judeo-Christian God...

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."
1785 Memorial and Remonstrance

Also,

"However, Madison did have one strength. He had a mind that had been shaped by the Word of God and by an eloquent leader's ability to apply the teachings of the Bible to the problems of human society. Madison's great teacher was The Rev, John Witherspoon, the Presbyterian President of Princeton from 1768 to 1792.

"It was said of John Witherspoon, 'He shaped the men who shaped America!' From among his three hundred or so students emerged 33 judges, three of whom were appointed to the Supreme Court, 56 state legislators, 29 United States congressmen, 21 United States senators, one Vice-President, and one President -- James Madison, the father of the Constitution and the prime-mover of the Bill of Rights. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon. Witherspoon served as a member of the Continental Congress during the Revolution and was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence.

"Madison had entered Princeton to study for the ministry. But with Witherspoon's mentoring, he left Princeton convinced that the ministry to which God was calling him was the ministry of helping to shape a new nation -- a nation that would last."

http://www.moorparkpres.org/sermons/1999/070499.htm

Madison believed in the idea of original sin and the evil nature of man. Government's purpose was to control this base behavior in lieu of God. A quote from him and Jefferson states it well:

Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

So Colbert, these people were not secular humanists. Minimally, they were deists, but I'm not so sure that some had a personal relationship with Christ....like Mr. Obama.

Oh, BGW, and my Dad's a Free Mason and a Methodist Minister....Secret societies have a tendancy to bring suspicion on themselves from those who are on the outside....And again, I don't agree with Dobson. I do not view the Free Masons as anything more than a group of men with similar interests having a good time and volunteering to help sick kids and the elderly. In George Washington's day, it may have been more mystical, but it still does not take away from his reverence for God.

By cee on October 25, 2006 2:28 PM

Colbert:

In response to your 10/24, 10:02 PM POST

The quote I used has been questioned because there has be no verifiable source, but no evidence someone made it up. Plus, there is other supporting evidence that Madison's worldview was based on biblical truths.

"[Madison] had a mind that had been shaped by the Word of God and by an eloquent leader's ability to apply the teachings of the Bible to the problems of human society. Madison's great teacher was The Rev, John Witherspoon, the Presbyterian President of Princeton from 1768 to 1792.

Ref:
http://www.moorparkpres.org/sermons/1999/070499.htm

Madison was a believer in the nonhumanist notion that man is inherently evil, needin authoirty to keep him in check....resulting in his limits on both government and the church. He said:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

The site I referenced sums it up well with a quote from CS Lewis:

"I am a democrat because I believe in the fall of man. The real reason for democracy is that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

He went on to say:

"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did the most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The apostles who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the slave trade all left their marks on earth precisely because their minds were occupied with heaven."

And it's the true Christian, Colbert, not the hypocritical ones you blame for every ill we see in this country.

More about Free Masons later.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 2:35 PM

"Whether or not God approves no one should claim that knowledge. But simply stated, your freedom is being maintained through the activity, just like Sir Loin implied many posts ago"

I implied nothing of the sort - you are fantasizing again. Our freedom is being curtailed and stunted by this war, and the propagandists and home-guard that defend it. I think you are referring to the post in which I stated we are responsible for the war; because we in this country actually have the constitutional apparatus that would allow us to control this loose-cannon executive, if we would only use it. We are not using it; therefore we are losing it. But we are still responsible because this has been a willful abdication that places our peoples' considerable powerr in the hands of an unnaccountable pirate.

By cee on October 25, 2006 2:39 PM

The second post at 2:28 was made because the 2:09 was not showing up....sorry for the confusion.

By Janet Hawkins on October 25, 2006 3:23 PM

Cee, I think you have more than met your match as a person of faith. Colbert, SLB and Codas are among them. They believe to the deepest core of their souls those articles of faith they hold regarding republicans, conservatives, fundamentalist Christians, President Bush and CO.

I read a piece by Thomas Sowell some time back asserting that liberals deride faith by others, but exhibit unsakable faith in their personal political and social beliefs. No evidence or lack of evidence can penetrate the wall they erected.

My apologies to Dr Sowell for presenting his eloquent words in my own way.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet

By cee on October 25, 2006 3:27 PM

Sorry Sir Loin,

I guess I misused the word freedom. Scratch that and put existance. My point has always been that as a community under the US Government, the duty of security is given to people we elect as leaders. They decide the course of action. The next election could very well be the way you and others voice their displeasure about the action....it seems like freedom to me, but I'll retract it anyway.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 4:49 PM

" My point has always been that as a community under the US Government, the duty of security is given to people we elect as leaders. They decide the course of action."

...and the courts are supposed to review their action to determine costitutionality; and the congress is charged with oversight powers. Too bad neither of these crucial elements of protecting our country (in this aspect from ourselves) have been exercised under this president. That's the problem with "Realists" who argue for plenary executive powers for the sake of swiftness or secrecy: they all make the flawed assumption that a nation-state's leaders act automatically in the interests of the state. When you have a group of pirates at the helm such as those under whom we suffer today one cannot safely accept this premise.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 4:57 PM

"I guess I misused the word freedom. Scratch that and put existance."

...and there you go again with the assertion that loose bands of suicide-bombers and box-cutter ninjas represent an existential threat to our nation. I strongly and explicitly disagree; but that's beside the point. If YOU recognize this threat, what are YOU doing about it?

I've already many times regaled you for not reacting to this percieved threat by serving in our nation's military, so I won't bother going down that road; but what ARE you doing? Do you work in a defense-related industry? That would still be mercenary work when compared with the altruistic sacrifice of national service, and would hardly be commensurrate with a patriotic citizen percieving an existential threat to his homeland. Are you a government operative? I'm very curious just what role you are hiding out in.

By Colbert on October 25, 2006 5:33 PM

Cee,
You said you'd deal more with my Madison lie later.
Then you said "The quote I used has been questioned because there has be no verifiable source, but no evidence someone made it up." If Madison never said it, and there is no evidence he did, then someone made it up. By your logic, Jesus said "Everyone should have at least five sex partners in their lives." Bush said "I lied about the WMD and those suckers bought it. I wanted to fight Iraq the entire time." Prove either person didn't say those things.

You quote what people said about Madison as evidence he thought we were a Christian nation. That doesn't cut it.

One major complaint against the Constitution was that it was an atheistic document.

From the Treaty of Tripoli written under Wshington and signed by Adams: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

From Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820) Jefferson to Adams

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823) Jefferson to Adams

Jefferson rejected the Bible being "the inspired word of God." He had his own Bible which deleted any mystical qualities. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God.

"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
Jefferson in Notes on the State of Virginia

The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'." Linn was a minister in NYC. Religious people in Jefferson's day thought he was an atheist and an infidel.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Jefferson to Benjamin Rush in 1800

Read "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" by Madison for his views. Madison helped pass Jefferson's Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom. "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities". And, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Finally, "And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you." Bishop White to Colonel Mercer
"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it.'"
Reverend James Abercrombie
Washington refused to take communion and turned his back on the Lord's Supper. What a devout Christian he was.

By codas on October 25, 2006 6:08 PM

Stay the course. No flip floppers. Truthiness. Fool me once....Won't get fooled again.

By Colbert on October 25, 2006 6:10 PM

Cee,
You're lost on Madison's quote about our right to bear arms. Let me clear it up for you. "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided
the consequences by denying the principle." "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." Now ask yourself why they were so against a standing army. The clear implication is the people were supposed to be armed to fight our own government if it usurped power. Contrast that with the sentiments of today's conservatives that if you speak out against Bush you're a traitor.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
Madison. Gee, that sounds familiar to what's going on now.

"Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."
Madison

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Madison

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." Madison

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Madison

"The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." Madison

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." Madison. Do you agree we should take his advice and mistrust Bush?

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” Madison

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short
history." Madison

"The most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property." Madison. If a modern Democrat said this he'd be called a socialist.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect." Madison

"History records that the money changers have used
every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." Madison

By Colbert on October 25, 2006 6:13 PM

Cee,
Here's Jefferson's take on the basis for our laws:
"We know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta [1215 CE], which terminates the period of the common law...and commences that of the statute law.... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.... Here, then, was a space of about two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.... If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law....We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is....Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? We may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.” (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

Of course only three of the Ten Commandments are in our laws and they all predate the Ten Commandments. So that is an obvioulsy bogus argument anyway.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 7:00 PM

Damn, Colbert; that pretty much nails it.

By cee on October 25, 2006 10:33 PM

Ok Colbert, another micturition contest...over length of post....READY, SET.....GO!

"In the United States the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth."

"Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country....each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same."

French statesman-historian Alexis de Tocqueville 1831

###
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

"[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."

John Adams

###
"He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all."

"Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

Samuel Adams

###
"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"

"The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code."

John Quincy Adams

###
"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?"

Ben Franklin

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

###
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

Alexander Hamilton

###
"In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness... Resolved; Thursday the 11th of May...to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]...That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation...for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations."

John Hancock

###
"It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."

Patrick Henry

###
"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."

"Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson."

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation."

John Jay

###
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man."

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

THOMAS JEFFERSON!

###
"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."

Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)

"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."
[Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation]
November 9, 1772]

WOW....I never knew James Madison actually witnessed to the unsaved!

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king;
He will save us."

[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same...body of principal men ...exercised these three powers."

Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible;
"An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia"Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

"It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other."

JAMES MADISON!!!!

###
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal."

Thomas Paine

###
"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

George Washington....

Also, it seems he was also conflicted:

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

###
Hey Colbert and Sir Loin....you better get an ACLU lawyer and have a judge mandate the removal of the inscription on the Liberty Bell:

"Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof" [Leviticus 25:10]

(If you don't know, Leviticus is the 3rd book of The Torah, the 3rd book of Moses)

And lastly my dear brothers.....

1. 97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.

2. 187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.

3. Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

4. You could hardly find a school in America that wasn't Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830's. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

5. Fewer and fewer people remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.

6. The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence". Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

WOW, this is interesting.....Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled."

Who ya gonna call, Colbert? GOD BUSTERS!!!!! (Also known as the modern day democratic party or the ACLU)

Have a pleasant evening....good night and good luck.

By Sir Loin of Beef on October 25, 2006 10:47 PM

""I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

THOMAS JEFFERSON
"
cee, you have conveniently forgotten Jefferson's views on what the dotines of Christ actually were. We had this discussion earlier today - remember - all the cutting and pasteing our 3rd President did to cut the voodoo and leprechauns ot of the scriptures? Boy, I'm sick of you.

By cee on October 25, 2006 10:59 PM

PS my dear Colbert and Sir Loin....

The Constitution is an atheist document?....uh?

Proof that the Declaration of Independence being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII of the Constitution.

The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the United States of America for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building.

###
"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens."

Daniel Webster

Did you know that it is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence? The Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation.

###
"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."

John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833]

###
The First Amendment does not include the phrase "separation of church and state." It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square.

The first public school law was passed in 1642. The past 350 plus years a Biblical world view was taught in the public schools. Science, Law, History,Theology all conformed to Gods standard. In 1963 the beginning of the end for a moral America came, God was officialy removed from the public schools. Mmmm, let me guess how old you two are, Sir Loin and Colbert?

###
"The Bible...is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation."

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington's Farewell Address 1796

And some more respected men of our country....

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

Woodrow Wilson

###
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody but the state."

Calvin Coolidge

###
"Progress has brought us both unbounded oppourtunities and unbridled difficulties. I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism. The thought of modern industry in the hands of Christian chariity is a dream worth dreaming. The thought of industry in the hands of paganism is a nightmare beyond imagining. The choice between the two is upon us."

"There is only one morality. All else is immorality. There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality."

Theodore Roosavelt

###
"The fundamental basis of this nations law was given to Moses on the mount. The fundamental basis of our bill of rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I dont think we emphasise that enough these days.."

Harry S Truman

Again.....good night gentlemen.

By cee on October 25, 2006 11:02 PM

Sir Loin....you just can't accept that men like Jefferson and Madison believed in God and Christ! Their words are conflicted at best and no one can get into their minds. You are a product of secularist indoctrination, and I feel sorry for you....lighten up!

By Colbert on October 25, 2006 11:55 PM

Cee,
Can you post once without lying? If your case about us being a "Christian nation" is so clear why do you have to make up quotes and lie about laws?
The law you claimed was to support religion says this:
"Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled."
The group ordered the stereotype plates before the tariffs were raised so Congress agreed to let them forgo the additional expense out of fairness. This wasn't seen by anyone, except current illiterate inbreds, to be promoting religion.

You and the other religious nuts think anyone who says "God" or any euphemism for "God" must be a religious zealot. In the Enlightenment, which was the basis for our Founders' thinking, euphemisms for God were used. These euphemisms were known to indicate the user was a deist and not very religious. Many alluded to Nature , a Creator, or Divine Providence. Gee, would any of your quotes contain these phrases? Also, the Constitution doesn't mention God or Jesus as being the basis for anything. Why would that be left out? Did the Founders forget about God those days?

We have the Treaty of Tripoli which explicitly states we are not a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson explained the basis for our laws was not Christianity or God.

Jefferson thought Jesus Christ was a human being just like us. He wasn't devine, wasn't magical and was not resurrected. It's how we might think of Ghandi or Mother Theresa. They are admirable people whose examples and words we should follow but they certainly aren't God. Jefferson founded the University of Virginia as a non-religious institution.

"Did you know that it is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence? The Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation."
Is there some website for religious zealots to congregate on? I've seen this same lie before. Perhaps you should have checked the American Bible Society's website, jackass. It claims to have begun in 1816. I don't think the Continental Congress which created the Declaration of Independence existed then. Do you?

God wasn't in public schools until 1962. That's a complete lie. Before 1900 only Massachusetts mandated any religious instruction in schools. Today students can read the Bible and pray in schools. They just can't be forced to by teachers or administrators.

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817.

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823.

"Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history." Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

Jefferson and Madison were clearly for the separation of church and state. The phrase comes from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

You're the product of brainwashing and incest, and I feel sorry for you.

By cee on October 26, 2006 7:02 AM

#1 My father is Swedish....second generation through Ellis Island....and my mom is Portugese, 3rd generation....Incest is highly unlikely.

#2 No brainwashing here....

....Despite 100% public education here in the wonderfully liberal state of New Jersey (1975-1987)...No prayer, no bible, but lots of pedophilia and pornography though.

....Despite being a Biology Major in a public, state college here in NJ. I was exposed to the best atheism and postmodernism have made...nice well intentioned people who respected my opinion as we discussed the theory of natural selection, the theories on the origin of life and other wonderful creations. Magna cum laude with honors in my major, loved the four years. Again, a secular environment with lots of adultury, fornication, disrespect for authority and profanity.

....Despite being a Medical Student in a public, state university here in NJ. Same as the state college...postmodernist worldview gallore, unethical processes and disrespect for life.

....Despite the daily attacks from you, Colbert....

a) I intellectually, rationally, and lovingly worship Jehovah, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit.

b) Continue to know that The LORD worked through the great men and women of our nation because they knew He existed, they feared Him and allowed Him into their hearts. The results of their hard labor, war and violence to secure a free country for many generations is testiment to their humble service. They could have called Him any name they wanted to, but it is clear they knew the bible much better than me or you and how The LORD wants to have relationship with the creation He loves so dearly.

BTW, I will easily counter your poor points later.
I have to go to work.

Finally....

#3 You, Colbert, are the brainwashed one here. Let me know about the history of your educational infusion into that mass of grey matter of your's. Have you ever been exposed to the level of disagreement that I have and challenged in your views. Or are you like I imagnine....the typical arrogant secularist who only lives in an echo chamber and never was able to handle someone else believing something different than him/her? You seem like the robot product of the ACLU, liberal anti-religion establishment....let me know if I am wrong...honestly?!?

By cee on October 26, 2006 8:35 AM

Excuse me, I mistyped....

I intellectually, rationally, and lovingly worship Jehovah, YESHUA and The Holy Spirit.

With regard to Yeshua and Thomas J....

There is another side to Jefferson’s character which is not so well known as the negative one of his antipathy to organized religion. Whatever else may be said in his favor, it must be admitted that he had a reverence and respect for the person and teachings of Jesus Christ which according to his limited vision he tried to put into practice. I have no idea whether Jefferson was a born again Christian. However, his thinking was greatly influenced by Jesus and the bible and is a part of the mosaic of the founding fathers as godly men.

I do feel it is important to HONESTLY evaluate Jefferson in this matter, since much of the present-day controversy in America over the relations of Church and State revolves around the pivotal question of what our Founding Fathers intended to legislate on the subject of religion; and their intention, it is safe to say, was an expression of their own religious convictions.

1) The so-called Jefferson Bible, or more accurately, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," is now the property of the United States National Museum at Washington, having been obtained by purchase in 1895.

2) The whole volume is a compilation of four parallel columns of Gospel texts, two to a page, in the four languages mentioned in the title. The texts are not written but were cut out of printed copies of Greek, Latin, French and English Testaments and pasted in this book of blank pages.

3) It clearly shows, by what Jefferson included, a belief in God and an afterlife. Jefferson's belief in God is evident first from his ready acceptance of the teachings of Christ on the subject, the Lord’s Prayer, the Eight Beatitudes, the Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Ten Talents, the Sermon on the Mount—all of which presuppose a belief in the existence of God, the Creator of heaven and earth. In addition, "The Morals of Jesus," shows that Jefferson believed in some sort of future life, where the good are rewarded and the wicked punished. Besides the Parables of Lazarus and Dives, of the Pharisee and Publican, and the Wedding Feast, Jefferson accepted and extracted the whole discourse of Christ about the Day of Judgment, in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, not excluding the classic verse 46, in which Christ foretells: "These will go into everlasting punishment, but the just into everlasting life."

Jefferson was a lot deeper than you give hum credit, Colbert...a product of your biased education in the secular dogma. He may have intellectually decided that Jesus' miracles were not true, but he believed in Him and even included His teachings on the afterlife... something I am sure you do not aree with.

Further, with the issue of church/state....you are wrong to characterize Jefferson's fear of organized religion's influence in the government as the same as a fear of God as part of the public discourse. All of the quotes you discussed were prohibitions on sects (denominations with varied theology) having exclusive access to government.

God does not equal religion. Your simple, bigoted worldview is so simplistic that getting your brain around that concept may be impossible.

A lot more later, when I have time.

By cee on October 26, 2006 9:03 AM

With regard to the letters between Jefferson and The Danbury Baptists.

You overlook the first letter....from the Jesus believing, God fearing group.....

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom ****through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

****added by me....look below....

Mmmm, looks like they were concerned about the government interfering with their religious pratices. They were not looking to influence the government, make their sect the one recognized by the government. They wanted to be left to worship as they have been. Jefferson agreed, and did not say anything else in his letter that suggests God had to be shunned from the public square. In fact, he ends his letter stating clearly he would PRAY for them IN JESUS' NAME!....(****)

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

Your indoctrination of secularizing a clearly God centered exchange from two religious individuals is pathetic. You pick the words that fit your worldview and ignore the rest. 1962 all over again.....more about that later.

By cee on October 26, 2006 9:35 AM

More.....

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; —for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; —for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; —for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; —for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; —and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; —to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; —to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; —to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; —to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; —and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my Hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

George Washington's October 3, 1789 National Thanksgiving proclamation, issued while he was President (as printed in the Providence Gazette and Country Journal, October 17, 1789)

Mmmm, do you mind when leaders say, "God Bless America?" Mmmm, you never addressed my rebut to your secularizing Mr. Washington. He used the bible in his swearing in for goodness sake. If you become President, Colbert, will you break that tradition of using the "sky fairy's" book?

Keep retreating into your phony euphemism argument....it is superficial and intellectually lazy. Also, to place your opinion of Christ on the founders is also intellectually disengenuous....very arguable.

By cee on October 26, 2006 9:43 AM

more....

I was wrong about the American Bible Society, sorry. The connection to the ABS is through John Jay, who was a member....

see-
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=73

But with regard to the public use of the scriptures:

"Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken's Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken's Bible, sometimes referred to as 'The Bible of the Revolution,' is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.

"On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:

To the Honourable The Congress
of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken
of the City of Philadelphia, Printer

Humbly Sheweth

That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.

"After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible"

From -http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=79

By sara Pelosi on October 26, 2006 12:14 PM

ha ha! be afraid GOP (Gassbag of perverts) be very afraid.
It really bothers you hypcrites when the "evil Liberals" are right.
We will really miss your great leadership in the house. No, really, I mean it.

By cee on October 26, 2006 2:58 PM

More learned people who see the value of religion in our public square....

From Justice Stewart's dissent in 1962....

At the opening of each day's Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God.

The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner," made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, 5 contains these verses:

"Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto `In God is our Trust.'"

In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 6 In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. 7 Since 1865 the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.

Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. 9 It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson

I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation - traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world.

###
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

THOMAS JEFFERSON

###
"But the source to which I look . . . is in . . . my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

JAMES MADISON

###
". . . Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Abraham Lincoln

###
"In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come."

FDR

###
"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole people."

Dwight Eisenhower

###
"The world is very different now. . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

JFK

###

And a great quote from Justice Stewart:

"I am at a loss to understand the Court's unsupported ipse dixit that these official expressions of religious faith in and reliance upon a Supreme Being "bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance." I can hardly think that the Court means to say that the First Amendment imposes a lesser restriction upon the Federal Government than does the Fourteenth Amendment upon the States. Or is the Court suggesting that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer, but prohibits school children from doing so?"

Still brainwashed, Colbert?

By cee on October 26, 2006 3:41 PM

Oh, and Justice Black, who wrote the opinion in 1962 erroniously claims, "wall of seperation of church and state appears in the constitution....

"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

Justice Black

Where does the constitution mention a, "wall."

###
Some more historical facts:

The Roxbury Latin School, the first formal school for children, was established by Puritans in 1635. Reading the Bible was at the core of their education. Students were taught to read so that they could read the Bible.

The Great and General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony established America’s first college in 1636. It was named after its first benefactor, John Harvard, a young minister. Although Harvard was never formally affiliated with any denomination, many of its first graduates became ministers to Puritan congregations

America’s second oldest university, The College of William and Mary, was established in 1693 in Williamsburg, Va., by charter of King William III and Mary II. When Thomas Jefferson enrolled in 1760 at the age of 16, the college program included a philosophy school, a grammar school for 12- to 15-year-old boys, a divinity school to prepare for ordination in the Church of England and an Indian school that was founded for the Christianization of Native American boys.

By cee on October 26, 2006 4:04 PM

Colbert claims....

"Jefferson thought Jesus Christ was a human being just like us"

Did you have a seance recetly?

By cee on October 26, 2006 4:31 PM

Lastly for today....(family waiting)....the Tripoli Treaty canard.....

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement, "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source.

That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the five Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada).

In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates"—a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.).

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.

Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation,
they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context.

It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton’s official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.

Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.

In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."

When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:

It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well."

And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?

Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:

The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton.... commander of the Christian and Other Forces....which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.

(http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5)

Colbert...try expanding your mind and accept that the men who signed The Declaration of Independence were humble, weak men who relied on God to do a remarkable thing.....form a new nation.

Cue Kate Smith....GOD BLESS AMERICA

By Colbert on October 26, 2006 5:55 PM

Cee,
First, I just notcied you actually used Thomas Paine. That shreds your credibility (as if making things up in each post hadn't). Did you ever hear of the Age of Reason?
Some quotes from the "religious zealot" Paine:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."

"Every phrase and cirsumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the error before he began to read."

"The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice."

"...but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any... "

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

Do you need more quotes or do you realize he wasn't the religious zealot you thought he was?

By Bill O'lielly on October 26, 2006 6:14 PM

Thomas Paine was too smart to be religous.

By Colbert on October 26, 2006 6:18 PM

Cee,
"Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
[James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

"During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment of Christianity has been upon trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy;
ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
James Madison

It is absolutely clear Madison and Jefferson wanted an absolute separation of church and state. Their are quotes from each that make it clear they thought the separation was beneficial to both. Jefferson never issued any religious proclamations. Andrew Jackson, whom you quoted, was deeply in favor in separation. He fought against religious proclamations or days of fasts. He, Madison, Jefferson fought for the Sunday mails which went against the Sabbath observement. All three men were labeled infidels and atheists by the clergy and other religious people in their day.

I'm not saying none of these people believed in a God. I'm saying they didn't believe in Christianity as you do and they never intended to combine religion with government. Their actions, which religious people fought against, make that perfectly clear. They thought religion corrupted government. They also thought religion was an individual choice and object. They wanted religion to be left alone and to leave the government alone. The government was formed as a secular institution. If you had even a basic understanding
of our history you'd know we became less secular in the 1900's than before. The Pledge including God, God on our money, etc. all started well after the Founders were dead.

Why does the Constitution explicitly forbid any religious test? If we're a Christian nation why forbid any religious test? Why not mention that we are a Christian nation in the Constitution? The Constitution is the basis of our government, not what happened in 1781. If you understood how the Articles worked and arguments surrounding them this would be very clear to you. Why did many anti-Federalists call the Constitution an atheistic document?
More later.

By cee on October 26, 2006 7:39 PM

Let's go all the way back Colbert.....I said:

You said, "Jefferson called religion superstition. Most of the Founders would be considered secular humanists by you religious whackos"

Wrongo, I love them guys and said,

"So Colbert, these people were not secular humanists. Minimally, they were deists, but I'm not so sure that some had a personal relationship with Christ....like Mr. Obama."

The you bait and switch with your statement:

"I'm saying they didn't believe in Christianity as you do and they never intended to combine religion with government."

Mmmm, nothing you have posted has directly supported that grand conclusion. My statements have been, even in the case of Mr. Paine, directed to showing their belief in God and then some even expressing a belief in Jesus, and then some expressing respect and use of biblical truths. You and Sir Loin seem to want to imply the founders were secular humanists who created a secular Republic: You are wrong.

1. Did you read my post regarding the Tripoli Treaty....It is clear that your limited reading of it is open to another interpretation.

2. The Declaration of Independence (not a secular document) is a part of The United States code, as pointed out by Samuel Adams...you never addressed that point.

3. Jefferson specifically complimented and prayed for The Danbury Baptists and his letter is clear in stating an agreement with their core belief in God. The political struggle between the New England crowd (Congregationalists, etc) and the Jeffersonian crowd was contentious and yes, both sides used religious name-calling to instill fear in the electorate. But Jefferson and Adams and Madison did have a common belief in God. I never said they were evangelical!

4. Furthermore, with regards to Mr. Paine, please read his letter to Samuel Adams at
http://www.deism.com/paine_essay08.htm

A quote:

"There is however one point of union wherein all religions meet, and that is in the first article of every man's creed, and of every nation's creed, that has any creed at all: I BELIEVE IN GOD. Those who rest here, and there are millions who do, cannot be wrong as far as their creed goes. Those who choose to go further may be wrong, for it is impossible that all can be right, since there is so much contradiction among them. The first therefore are, in my opinion, on the safest side.

"I have said in the first page of the first part of that work that it had long been my intention to publish my thoughts upon religion, but that I had reserved it to a later time of life. I have now to inform you why I wrote it and published it at the time I did.

"In the first place, I saw my life in continual danger. My friends were falling as fast as the guillotine could cut their heads off, and as I every day expected the same fate, I resolved to begin my work. I appeared to myself to be on my death-bed, for death was on every side of me, and I had no time to lose. This accounts for my writing it at the time I did; and so nicely did the time and the intention meet, that I had not finished the first part of that work more than six hours before I was arrested and taken to prison. Joel Barlow was with me and knows the fact.

"In the second place, the people of France were running headlong into atheism, and I had the work translated and published in their own language to stop them in that career, and fix them to the first article (as I have before said) of every man's creed who has any creed at all, I believe in God.

"I endangered my own life, in the first place, by opposing in the Convention the execution of the King, and by laboring to show they were trying the monarchy and not the man, and that the crimes imputed to him were the crimes of the monarchical system; and I endangered it a second time by opposing atheism; and yet some of your priests, for I do not believe that all are perverse, cry out, in the war-whoop of monarchical priestcraft, "What an infidel, what a wicked man, is Thomas Paine!" They might as well add, "for he believes in God and is against shedding blood."

"But all this war-whoop of the pulpit has some concealed object. Religion is not the cause, but is the stalking horse. They put it forward to conceal themselves behind it. It is not a secret that there has been a party composed of the leaders of the Federalists, for I do not include all Federalists with their leaders, who have been working by various means for several years past to overturn the Federal Constitution established on the representative system, and place government in the New World on the corrupt system of the Old.

"To accomplish this, a large standing army was necessary, and as a pretense for such an army, the danger of a foreign invasion must be bellowed forth from the pulpit, from the press, and by their public orators.

"I am not of a disposition inclined to suspicion. It is in its nature a mean and cowardly passion, and upon the whole, even admitting error into the case, it is better, I am sure, it is more generous, to be wrong on the side of confidence than on the side of suspicion. But I know as a fact that the English Government distributes annually fifteen hundred pounds sterling among the Presbyterian ministers in England and one thousand among those in Ireland; and when I hear of the strange discourses of some of your ministers and professors of colleges, I cannot, as the Quakers say, find freedom in my mind to acquit them. Their anti-revolutionary doctrines invite suspicion even against one's will, and in spite of one's charity to believe well of them.

"As you have given me one Scripture phrase I will give you another for those ministers. It is said in Exodus xxii, 28, "Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the ruler of thy people." But those ministers, such I mean as Dr. Emmons, curse ruler and people both, for the majority are, politically, the people, and it is those who have chosen the ruler whom they curse. As to the first part of the verse, that of not reviling the Gods, it makes no part of my scripture. I have but one God."

Paine saw the religous systems as corrupt and that the new country needed protection from that....not protection from God. Deists are NOT atheists or agnostics...they believe in God with their hearts...and they founded this country.

The letter goes on to discuss the big differences, religiously, between the two men, but it is obvious they loved eachother like brothers. God Bless 'em.

One more BEAUTIFUL quote from Paine:

"Do we want to contemplate His power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate His wisdom: We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate His munificence? We see it in the abundance with which He fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate His mercy? We see it in His not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful."

What is the definition of zealot?

A person with zeal, or passion....mmmm, up for interpretation....but Paine seems pretty passionate about the diety.

Your word, "religious," BTW, not mine, not even part of my vocabulary here. Remember, way in the beginning, I said, "Go deeper than, 'religious,' Colbert...I'm getting bored with you."

Read it and weep, gentlemen.

By Colbert on October 26, 2006 7:49 PM

Cee,
Now the Treaty of Tripoli is a secualarist plot? Did we invent the thing? Maybe it never existed? Washington did write we aren't a Christian nation because we aren't. You're too sheltered to understand that people can have personal beliefs which they don't want to force upon others. If Lieberman becomes President, should he force us to all become Jews? Of course not. Washington believed in a God but he wouldn't take communion. He was a deist which meant he didn't believe Jesus Christ was God.

You are the most pathetically stupid person I've ever met. I've known atheists and Jews who sent their children to Christian private schools. That certainly didn't make them or their children Christians. Jefferson attended a Christian school as a child but founded a secualist school.

Jefferson didn't think Jesus Christ was a God or Creator or anything else. I know that because he says so. If Jefferson said he'd pray to God he meant he would pray to God, not Jesus. He didn't think Christianity was the basis of our laws.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

"I do feel it is important to HONESTLY evaluate Jefferson in this matter, since much of the present-day controversy in America over the relations of Church and State revolves around the pivotal question of what our Founding Fathers intended to legislate on the subject of religion; and their intention, it is safe to say, was an expression of their own religious convictions."

The Founding Fathers didn't intend to legislate on religion at all, you ignorant, inbred horses ass. Are you too inbred to read what they did legislate? They allowed Sunday mails which went against Christianity. What they did do goes against the argument that they meant to legislate religion. It isn't safe to say they implemented their religious beliefs. Jefferson and Madison explicitly said doing that is wrong. How dumb can you be? Do you twist every quote you read to imply the writer loves God? Oops I mentioned God. I must be a religious zealot now.

By cee on October 26, 2006 9:10 PM

Colbert,

You do not read my posts. I have methodically shown that these great men were reverent and knowledgable about God. You are full of hate and twist their words to fit your atheistic point of view. You do not even respond to the hundreds of quotes I provided from Washington to JFK. These wise people worked to make a new nation. Not a religious nation, you twit, a Godly nation. A nation based on fundamental rights granted by a creator, a God, a diety, Yahweh, Jehovah, LORD, I AM. You are blind to the fact and it is not your fault. You are the product of secularist propaganda, secularist indoctrination, and secularist hate. You have called me inbred about a half a dozen times now even after I clearly stated I live in the bluest of states and received the same flawed public education you got. You don't read. You hate.

For every anti-religious quote you spewed, I put up three that used the bible and expressed reverence to God. You never addressed the entire exchange between Jefferson and The Danbury Baptists. You ignored the correct analysis of the treaty of Tripoli, and you ignored Washington's inaugural and use of the bible in the swearing in. You ignored the 1962 dissent and the erroneous language of the majority opinion by Justice Black (an idiot). You ignored Madisons use of Isaiah. You ignored the fact that the Liberty Bell has an inscription from The Torah. You ignored Paine's letters that clearly show the conflict within the man between The Age of Reason and his deism. You ignored his great respect for the Christianity of Samuel Adams. You ignored the beauty and love of Patrick Henry. You ignored the eloquence of the philanderer and sinner, Ben Franklin. You ignored the writings of John Jay.

You ignore, because you hate.

The rules do not matter....the laws are reflective of God's holiness. God does not care about shopping on Sunday, praying to Him in the school or the right doctrine. He loves those he created and wants them to know Him. Quote after quote supports this loving view of "the sky fairy," you atheists degrade and abuse. These men would not have agreed with you, they would have been repelled by your thoughts.

Colbert, think about the first time you read The Declaration of Independence, please. Soften your heart to Jefferson's final sentence,

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Good night, and God bless you.

By Colbert on October 26, 2006 11:56 PM

Cee,
I had more quotes from our actual pro-Constitution Founders than you did. Most of your quotes (the ones you didn't make up) were from people who fought against the Constitution or were not in our Founding Fathers generation. I like JFK, FDR, Truman, Ike, etc. but they weren't our Founders. You cite Supreme Court cases from 1898 and 1962 (a dissent no less) as "proof" about the Founders. Then you claim any S.C. Justice who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. By all means, call Bush and ask him to nominate you for the S.C. since you're so qualified.

You never adressed most of my quotes or why the Constitution doesn't mention God or Jefferson's explicit quotes stating English common law, not God or Christianity, is the basis for our law or the obvious secular governing of the Founders or most other things I brought up.

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789).

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

It is plain as day the Founders were in favor of complete separation. Jefferson stated so in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Their letter doesn't change what he says. He says there is a wall of separation. Here are quotes of his about religion meddling in government to prove he didn't see it as only a one way street"

You claim what the Tripoli Treaty says doesn't matter because other people claimed what was cleary said was not meant. Of course you're the one arguing for the good kind of Biblical slavery so what would I expect? There was a preliminary signing of the Treaty on November 4, 1796. Guess who was President then? Yes. Washington. He did see the text of Article 11 and approved it. In fact, no one had a problem with it, even though it was printed for the public. You make up your own facts an lie about everything because you're completely wrong.

The Constitution, not the Declaration, is the law of the land and it does not mention God. In fact, it says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." Even the Declaration says "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Nothing about God creating the government or our rights being secured by Christanity or religious quibbles with Britain. I'm far smarter than you so I won't belabor the point about Enlightenment phrases for God. It's obvious that went way over your lowly IQ. Suffice it to say, someone of even average intelligence would know I'm right. To reiterate for the mental midget, the Declaration IS NOT the law of the land. It was simply a declaration... of... INDEPENDENCE. Hence the name.

I am at a loss to understand how someone could be as dumb as you are. I know I'm far smarter than you and it's been hard to try to get down on your low level. This is such a simple concept yet you fail to see it. The Founders purposefully left God out of the Constitution which is the foundation of our government. They stated they intended a "separation" of church and state. The Constitution says there is to be no religious test. You don't have to believe in God at all. In general, simply because someone believes something doesn't mean he forces his beliefs on others. Yet you continue to say if they believed in God they intended us to based on God. Even though Jefferson, Madison, Washington, the Constitution all say we were based on the English common law.

By Colbert on October 27, 2006 12:04 AM

Cee,
You say the Sabbath means nothing to God. Isn't observing the Sabbath one of the Ten Commandments sent down from God? If God doesn't care about prayer in school why do you people? Are you better than God?

Also, if Jefferson wanted a Godly government why did he refuse to issue fasts, prayers, etc.?

By cee on October 27, 2006 7:49 AM

Colbert,

I have to go to work. However, you lied, again....

"You claim what the Tripoli Treaty says doesn't matter because other people claimed what was cleary said was not meant. Of course you're the one arguing for the good kind of Biblical slavery so what would I expect? There was a preliminary signing of the Treaty on November 4, 1796. Guess who was President then? Yes. Washington. He did see the text of Article 11 and approved it. In fact, no one had a problem with it, even though it was printed for the public. You make up your own facts an lie about everything because you're completely wrong."

1) I did not say it did not matter, I said that it is wrong to automatically attribute the quote to George Washington. You claim, "He did see the text of Article 11 and approved it"...show me documentation he saw the final language, including Article 11, Colbert. Remember, it is 1796...no telephones, no internet. The initial signing on 11/4/96 was in Tripoli, not in The US....is it really accurate to attribute Article 11 to Washington?

2) The public saw the treaty in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1997, not before as far as my research goes. Adams was inaugurated on March 4, 1797.

3) Lastly, the current President was Adams when the Treaty arrived for ratification in America. He later wrote to Jefferson saying,

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." 1813

Also, prior to your claim of declaration of a secular nation by Washington via the treaty's Article 11, he clearly stated this wonderful principle in his farewell address:

"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 OF HUMAN HAPPINESS, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, REASON AND EXPERIENCE BOTH FORBID US TO EXPECT THAT NATIONAL MORALITY CAN PREVAIL IN EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE."

REASON AND EXPERIENCE BOTH FORBID US TO EXPECT THAT NATIONAL MORALITY CAN PREVAIL IN EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE

Colbert....more later with regard to your arrogance, postmodernist indoctrination and stunted intellect.

By cee on October 27, 2006 10:41 AM

Now, before I rebut the tripe from Colbert....allow me to use a thinker liberals always like to claim as their exclusive, Locke, for a review of the mechanics by which the colonies became The United States of American as a nation of people and then the government as regulated by The Constitution.

I think we can all agree that the philosophy of John Locke's social contract paradigm centers around the claim that the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end. The end being the benefit of all. The contract is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest. When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.

(I may not wish to stop there as a Christian, however, for the sake of argument with Colbert, I will remain in the "natural world," so as to prove my point.)

With regards to the evolution of our country under the wise guidance of the founding fathers, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was the first social contract that established the new entity of The United States of America. It is still in effect and part of our law today...it has to be, since this entity we call "USA" was established with the signatories listed from each of the orginal 13 colonies. Logically the first social contract of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE applies to those of us who live within the geographical boundries of the USA present day.

The second contract follows from the formation of a new entity to form the state. The government was instituted by the Articles of Confederation and then, the US Constitution.

So, we have TWO entities connected and following a chronological timeline. First, the society formed by the signing of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Secondly, the government formed first by THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION and then settled with THE US CONSTITUTION.

Remember Colbert, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDECE BEGINS,

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

This nation, YOUR nation, Colbert, was formed with a contract with the above opening that stands firmly recognizing GOD. That does not mean you have to believe in God. It means that the nation (the majority of the people) believed in God. Not a very secular humanist idea.

Then, to your distaste, Colbert....

"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The TRUTH! What about that truth about a creator, Colbert....Is it not true? I think it is. Will you say Jefferson was LYING about the endowment?

Then finally at the conclusion....

"We, therefore, the representatives of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

WHO IS "THAT SUPREME JUDGE," Colbert?
WHAT IS "DIVINE PROVIDENCE," Colbert?

Colbert retreats constantly to the "godless" constitution as proof the USA is not a "religious," "godly," "Christian," or "theocratic," nation. That's a valid, yet superfical argument that ignores 99% of the other history that occurred in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Colbert should be clear and state that, in fact, The Constitution forms the government, NOT the nation. That nation was established via
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

I continue to argue that the principles that drove the founders, whether deists or Christians, was "christian" in content and their belief in God was a foundation that supported the actions they took. The mechanics of the social contract process or the law WAS secular. However, the people, the nation, were not secular. Do I make myself clear?

PLEASE! GO back to what you originally said Colbert. You claimed the founders were SECULAR HUMANISTS! I took umbrage and from that these posts have come. Quote after quote shows clearly these men were not atheists or agnostics and endorsed the application of Judeo-Christian ideas to their own lives and those they wanted to asscoiate with. Some, like Washington, even held high the idea of religion (my last post).

Colbert keeps retreating back to the establishment clause, (which I NEVER argued against), as evidence that we are a secular nation. No, that argument is evidence we function under a secular government, ONLY! The nation, or society, was, and still is as a majority, a Christian nation.

Semantics are wonderful. Colbert's postmodernist philosophy crumbles under it's own roof that it can't support because of a lousy foundation, there is no truth. "The founders were secular humanists".....please, don't make me laugh.

More good stuff to come!

By cee on October 27, 2006 11:00 AM

Ah, the arrogance of Colbert....

"I'm far smarter than you so I won't belabor the point about Enlightenment phrases for God. It's obvious that went way over your lowly IQ. Suffice it to say, someone of even average intelligence would know I'm right. To reiterate for the mental midget, the Declaration IS NOT the law of the land. It was simply a declaration... of... INDEPENDENCE. Hence the name."

It seems to me that your dismissal of The Declaration of Independence does not have much support or documentation...oh great and powerful OZ! Please, give me some quotes or dissertation about the irrelevance of The Declaration of Independence if you are going to make such a grand statement, "Hence the name."

Mental midget, indeed! I scoff at the man behind the curtain.

By ScreamThyLastScream on October 27, 2006 11:11 AM

Arguing about what the founding fathers thought about God and if they wanted a Christian nation is pointless. If you are Christian then be one. If you are not then don't.

By cee on October 27, 2006 11:53 AM

And with regards to your constent drum beat about the establishment clause.....

Wow, another interesting fact I discovered:

"One further note should be made about the now infamous 'separation' dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase 'separation of church and state.' It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did."

What do you say to that, Colbert? If you want to read more intellectual and honest analysis of the establishment clause check out:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

Let me know if you still want to make the ridiculous claim, "It is plain as day the Founders were in favor of complete separation," oh mighty and powerful OZ.

I bow to thee!

By cee on October 27, 2006 4:42 PM

Oh Great and Powerful OZ (Colbert):

One last point my midget brain remembered:

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination- a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow- signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

"The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."

Thomas Jefferoson to Rush, 1800

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Those sects were mostly in New England and were Jefferson's political opponents. They had a right to fear that the founders would restrict their religious freedom based on their experience in Europe. However, it is clear that the establishment clause was there to keep the government from interfering with thier expression.

And one final discussion about the religious Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia 1794

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "wall" of the Danbury letter was not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

"Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for "separation of church and state":

"The rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise.....must rest with the States." Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

By Kodos on October 27, 2006 10:15 PM

Thanks for doing me a solid and pimping my blog, yo!

By Colbert on October 28, 2006 11:48 PM

Cee,
I reread your posts and realized I missed some of your "points." James Madison and the other Founders did not get their idea for a separation of powers from the Bible. According to that verse, all power is held in one entity. Clearly, the Constitution wanted to disperse the three types of powers in many different people and entities. The legislative power is broken into two chambers and hundreds of people. The judicial power has nine top Justices but multiple levels. The executive, which would be closest to the Lord in your analogy, was given less power than the Congress.

You claim Jefferson, Madison and Paine would hate secularists? Review their quotes about Bible thumpers like you.

The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system. - Paine

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
- Paine

People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty? - Paine

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.
- Paine

Christianity is the strangest religion ever set up, for it committed a murder upon Jesus in order to redeem mankind from the sin of eating an apple.
- Paine

It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist. - Paine (Government has nothing to do with God according to this)

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion. - Paine

What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith. - Paine

The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind. - Paine

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense. - Paine

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. [James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity. [James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.” - Madison (That sounds like God wasn't the source.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April
13, 1820

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

In general, Madison's, Paine's and Jefferson's writings are laced with synonyms for igorance, by which they meant absolute religious devotion. They longed for the people to use reason and science to overcome their ignorance. This thought-process was due to their love of the Enlightenment.

You downplayed Jefferson's importance after your attack on his "Wall of Separation" letter failed. Below are two letters of Madison's on the subject. Also, Jefferson greatly influenced Madison and they kept each other up-to-date on everything. It's ignorant to claim Jefferson wouldn't have had knowledge of the thinking behind the First Amendment simply because he wasn't named to write it.

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. - Madison, 1819

Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States. - Madison undated early 1800's essay

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself [James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811]
Notice the phrases "perfect separation" and "total separation?"

By cee on October 29, 2006 8:20 AM

Point/counterpoint of the Great & Powerful OZ:

I said the founders were not SECULAR HUMANISTS!

James Madison also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony — as when he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington):

"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."

"Additionally, throughout his Presidency, Madison issued several proclamations for public days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving, and like Jefferson, President Madison also attended church at the Capitol, thus publicly endorsing religion in official arenas.

From http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=24

Oh my...Christian religious services in government facilities! That sounds like total seperation behavior and secular humanist behavior to me! (sarcasm)

###
Your ideological ally, Thomas Paine, was mentioned many, many posts before...

I said,

"My statements have been, even in the case of Mr. Paine, directed to showing their belief in God and then some even expressing a belief in Jesus, and then some expressing respect and use of biblical truths. You and Sir Loin seem to want to imply the founders were secular humanists who created a secular Republic: You are wrong."

Are you suggesting Paine was an atheist? Becasue your own quote refutes that silly idea:

Colbert quoted:

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to THE ALMIGHTY (cee added emphasis), more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.
- Paine

This does NOT refute my original problem with your idiotic statement,

"Most of the Founders would be considered secular humanists by you religious whackos"

If by most you mean ONE, Thomas Paine...then fine, but he was ONLY the closest to your nihilistic dogma, but even here, it is evident Mr. Paine was tolerant of, "fairy believers," and even voiced the opinion he was one himself....minimally a deist....LIKE I HAVE CLAIMED ALL ALONG!

Post after post gives evidence that Jefferson and Madison, although not as passionate about Christianity as Henry, were more than deists.

No secular humanists in this group, sorry to tell you, OZ.

Lastly from wallbuilders.com, an interesting critique of Paine's beliefs from Ben Franklin, in a letter to Paine himself....

"DEAR SIR,

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

"But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin"

I would take Mr. Franklin's advice if I were you, Colbert (OZ). Oh, BTW, you never responded to my post regarding my background with some aspects of your's. Did you EVER have religious instruction, even as a child? Just wondering.

Lastly, the response by the majority of the founding fathers to Paine's, "AGE OF REASON," was pretty negative....see:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93

for that issue. The results of his later works resulted in anger and animosity between him and his former friends, resulting in isolation and sorrow. I hope he came to terms with it prior to his death.

Have a wonderful Sabbath.

By Colbert on October 29, 2006 11:12 AM

Cee,
Even John Adams would think you're a complete idiot.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - J.A. "Defense ..."

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." J.A. "Defense ..."

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist." - Franklin

Could you make up your mind about whether our Constitution, government, laws are based on Christianity or not? You claimed it was then it wasn't then found some more Pat Robertson talking points to claim it was. Here's Jefferson:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
And,
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law. Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."

You quoted Tocqueville before. Here's a quote for you:
"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point" -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Your wrote your quote from Washington ten times in bold type, like a 10-year old would. Here's some:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789

"Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess."
-- George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress, expressing opposition to a congressional plan to appoint brigade chaplains in the Continental Army (1777)

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."- T.J.

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did." - T.J.

And Jefferson himself says the basis of morality isn't God and our principles are founded on reason.

"Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797.

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Oh look her. Jefferson used "wall of separation" more than once. Explain this one away.
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808).

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to N G Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller, 1814, after being prosecuted for selling de Becourt's book, Sur la Création du Monde, un Systême d'Organisation Primitive, which Jefferson himself had purchased

Here's the full Jefferson quote you chopped apart and mangled.

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.
But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the US an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Now assuming "it must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority" is seen as a ringing endorsement of state intervention, assuming the states didn't have their own bills of rights, and assuming the Founders intended the states to not allow the people any rights, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed all Americans the rights granted under the Constitution.

By Colbert on October 29, 2006 11:39 AM

Cee,
Everytime you post you embarrass yourself. What legal status do you claim the Declaration has? It was a docement between thirteen sovereign states. We now have fifty. Those thirty-seven extra states didn't have to abide by the Declaration, only the Constitution. Government officials must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Declaration. You can sue if your rights have been violated under the Constitution, not the Declaration. Do you know why Jefferson wrote the Constitution, as opposed to Adams? Because Adams had more important work to do. At that point, writing state constitutions, dealing with the ongoing war, and simply declaring independence (they wanted a unanimous vote and had to cajole holdouts; which was a separate vote before approving the Declaration itself) were seen as more important matters. The thirteen states were independent and formed a voluntary partnership. You don't seem to understand the situation then was far different than it is today. You seem to think we were one country just as we are today.

Even taking the Declaration as it stands, you're still wrong. It never mentions Jesus or Christianity. It says "Nature's God" and "Creator." That is far different than the "God" you think about. You miss this from the Declaration: "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government" Governments are instituted by and among and abolished by people, deriving their power from the people. Nowheer does it say governments are given to us by God or Jesus.

I forgot to mention one more thought about the ninety people working on the Bill of Rights. I don't trust some right-wing website which you've gotten lies from already. I'm sure reading the entire notes would leave the clear impression they intended government and religion to be separate. Quotes by Madison and Jefferson make it clear
they thought we had a "total separation."

Let me give you some advice so you can stop making a fool out of yourself. Read the Federalist, the notes taken at the Constitutional convention, historical documents and books. By "read" I don't mean search your religious right websites for quotes taken out of context or personal opinions not affecting public pronouncements that "support" your side. Actually read the entire books and documents and think about what you read. If you do, you'll be unable to conclude the Constitution, our government, our laws, etc. are based on Christianity or Jesus or God.

Lastly, I said you right-wing zealots would claim our Founders were secular humanists. And you would claim that about anyone who espoused the views of our Founders. In fact, some of your right-wing sites attack Paine and claim Madison's and Jefferson's roles are overblown. They realize they can't turn Madison, Jefferson, Paine, etc. into a fundamentalist Christian. They argue Mason was the true Father of the Bill of Rights.

By Colbert on October 29, 2006 12:23 PM

Cee,
"For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise.....must rest with the States." Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy."

You are dumb. I'll reiterate. This is 2006, not 1800. Amendements have been passed since 1800 that might affect this. I'll give you a hint, kid: its after 13 but before 15.

Your letter from Jefferson to Rush in 1800 doesn't say what you claim it says. You can't even read, apparently. "The [First Amendment] ... had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States" but "they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly." All that letter says is that the clergy (being as dumb as you) thought the First Amendment allowed establishment and Jefferson would fight it. It never claims that is all the First Amendment says or prohibits. That letter supports my argument more than your's because it doesn't support your's at all. I have provided many quotes from Jefferson that claim he was against religion interfering in government. He saw it as a two-way street and wanted a separation between government and religion.

Your quote from the Notes is taken out of context (it's about slavery which the Bible condones) and is refuted by this Jefferson quote:
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Here are quotes from Jefferson (which you've never adressed because Wallbuilders hasn't told you how to and you're incapable of thought) claiming he didn't want religion interfering in government:

Your S.C. decision means nothing. Maybe if you didn't copy and paste from Wallbuilders you wouldn't be proven a fool so constantly. Reynolds was about polygamy. He claimed he couldn't be charged because it was his religious duty. It clearly doesn't say religion can meddle in government. It says "Congress ... was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." The second statement essentially says the same thing. That doesn't refute anything I've said. Of course Congress can legislate against illegal actions. Jefferson says religion is not free to commit illegal acts. The Jefferson letter or separation is never mentioned in the decision you quoted, anyway. Good job, jackass.

The Jefferson letter is not taken out of context. It says what it means and it was repeated in other letters Jefferson and Madison wrote. It was written as President to a group of his constituents and shows his clear understanding of a Constitutional phrase which he would know the meaning of.

By cee on October 29, 2006 8:30 PM

Oh OZ the magnificient...

Your lever workings behind the curtain seem frantic.

It seems you just can't accept the simple fact that you claimed the founders, as a majority, would be considered, "secular humanists." You said it, I did not. Quote after quote, (and allow me to point out your last two posts have repeats which I had read already...yawn), shows clearly that this nation was formed with principles taken from the bible....the scriptures of the hebrew and christian texts. Every single man had, at some point in thier life, (and many, multiple times), proclaimed the name of God, Jesus and employed the bible in wonderful, glowing, respectful and loving terms.

I am starting to think you would take a black sharpie, like the bolsheviks did in the 1920's, and stike from our history any mention of God. You do not seem to realize that the history which we study has many components to it and, guess what, the founders were believers in God! Some believed Christ was His Son, and some even prayed to Him. You are so bigoted that you have to cleanse a wonderful mosaic of history to fit your narrow minded world view.

Some facts, (please pay attention, OZ)

1) The Declaration of Independence is the in legal force, the founding document of The United States of America. I guess with your logic, we should ignore that it clearly declares our existence as a nation. Let's both go down to the achives and request it be discarded.

The Preamble of The US Constituion clearly says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now, you said I was embarrasing myself, so I'm going out on a limb here.....Who or what is, "The United States of America" oh great and mighty, benevolent OZ?

Let me refresh your memory where, OFFICIALLY, The United States of America, as a nation, was legally pronounced first in the.....

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

As you can see, The Constitution only declares they were to, "establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The "Union," already exisited and still exists because of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. The COnstitution only provides the framework of federal laws and the process of annexing new territory that can become part of THE UNITED STATES.

Do I have to repeat, the signers, (as OFFICIAL representatives of the original colonies), of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE were bound to this new nation, legally and under death sentence from Great Britain. Even President Lincoln notes the historical signifigance of the document in the first line of The Gettysburg Address noting, that it, NOT THE US CONSTITUION, was the start of the nation he was chief executive over....legally..and under attack for dissoluiton in the war he was waging with The Confederacy.

I asked you to try to understand this simple concept. I know as an atheist who believes OZ is all he needs, that it makes you whince to see, "Creator," and other beutiful words that describe God. Please, let go of your hate and arrogance, and come to the light!

Please OZ, stop foaming at the mouth and take a deep breath and try not to hate your country's history. So many of the intellectuals of the present age think they know what great men and women thought and believed. I was open to a wide range of definitions.....deists to Christians...you, on the other hand, have to believe they were seculaists because that's what you want to believe. For every quote you had, I had one contradicting it from the same guy. You never even addressed my post about Locke. What a shame, OZ, I expect so much more from you.

Another gem from the site you hate so much really makes clear to me your problem, OZ. You perform, "law office history." That is, you, "imbued with the adversary ethic, selectively recount facts, emphasizing data that support your own prepossessions and minimizing significant facts that complicate or conflict with your biases."

I have not embarrased myself, Mighty OZ. Your nihilistic worldview is what is embarrassingly on display here. You never mentioned your background or possible religious instruction exposure. Why? Would it honestly expose a weakness in your psyche?

Your humble servent, in awe of OZ...cee

PS I have read and studied The Federalist Papers...even had nicer debates with kookier liberals than you about them with regard to what kind of country we have become since 1925 Gitlow v. NY. Also, with respect to your favorite amendment, The Federalist Papers are an interesting way to look at the 14th Amendment and how it has been misused for the past 100 years.....Another time though, for that great discussion OZ.

By Colbert on October 29, 2006 10:30 PM

Cee,
David Barton is an admitted liar. Only an idiot would believe anything he says. He has admitted using false quotes and information to claim America is a Christian nation. Don't you wonder why someone would make things up to support their case if the truth was on their side? Why make things up when you don't have to? Obviously, Barton felt the actual facts weren't strong enough support for his position. You have parroted some of his admittedly false quotes which proves you're either an idiot or a liar. It's clear you aren't smart enough to argue on your own or think for yourself. All you do is copy and paste from Barton's website. Judging by the conflicting statements on Jefferson's supposed Capitol church services, coming from only right-wing sources, and the lack of historic sources to support the case, I doubt the claim.

Jefferson, Madison and Washington were deists. Even your right-wing sources admit they didn't take communion. Their quotes clearly show they were deists. They and Paine were all attacked by atheists and infidels by the religious right and clergy in their own time.

As far as Barton's attack (since I can only respond to Barton because he is the only one talking in your posts so why am I arguing with an imbecile who's too stupid to think for himself?)
on Paine, Jefferson sent a ship to pick up Paine in France in 1802. They remained close until Paine's death. The quotes from Barton, if not made up like everything else he says, are not from anyone relevant to our discussion. Where are his quotes from Madison and Jefferson attacking Age of Reason? Oh that's right. They didn't attack it because they agreed with Paine. Are you really so stupid you think Madison, Jefferson, Washington or Paine agreed with your religious views? Are you telling me if a Presidential candidate today professed the same views they did you wouldn't vote against that person?

Your knowledge of history couldn't fill a thimble.
If the Founders realized 30% of our population were as dumb and backward as you, and still believed the Bible to be God's word, they'd be shocked and appalled. If you had read the Federalist Papers and understood them you'd realize the Constitution wasn't written according to the Bible or God. Whenm you find Barton's talking points on the 14th Amendment get back to me.

Just for fun I wanted to see who the religious right do consider secular humanists. I'll mention them and their quotes in the next post.

By Colbert on October 29, 2006 10:58 PM

Cee,
By the way, I notice you didn't refute anything I said. Of course you can't. I had many more actual quotes from the Founders than you that said anything relevant. The difference is, you listed every quote to be found. I listed a tiny fraction. I've read through much of Jefferson's and Madison's correspondence and it is clear they were deists, Enlightenment followers, and intended a secular government and nation.

I'll admit reading right-wing filth turns my stomach. I've heard right-wingers I know call the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. secular humanists. I'll assume the right-wingers I know use the same talking points as the rest.
President Clinton and Hillary, by any objective viewpoint, would be seen as more religious and more Christian (in the sense of believing the New Testament) than Jefferson, Paine, Madison or Washington.
John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are Catholics who, I believe, attend church services regularly. If you followed the 2004 campaign you know Kerry takes communion. They'd be considered, by an objective viewpoint, more Christian and religious than the four Founders mentioned.
Pelosi is also a Catholic who wanted to be a priest as a child. I can find you quotes from all of them to show how religious they are.

By cee on October 29, 2006 11:08 PM

Hey OZ....a few more things you neglected to remember about your special secular friend, Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes.

In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to "assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church" and to provide "annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest." He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in "promoting Christianity."

When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services.

Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive "the patronage of the government."

Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word "God" in its motto.

While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson."

And what about our country's motto and that pesky phrase you want removed from all the money, Almighty OZ?

Yes, the motto is E Pluribus unum, however...

That Francis Scott Key fella came along and ruined everything for those secular humanists that were running the new nation....

The last stanza of his poem, THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER....

"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Later, the congress approved, "In God We Trust," to be put on the new 2 cent coin in 1864.

Very different from the dogma the secular humanists have been spoon feeding you OZ...The issue on, "In God We Trust," goes back way past the Cold War era.

Lastly, what about that seal of ours, OZ?

Please let me know what you think about that pyramid and the eye on top of it....Also, what does the motto, "Annuit Coeptis mean?....

"He has favored our undertakings"

"He" isn't OZ, Colbert...."He" refers to GOD.

Both sides of the seal were passed by those nasty diests in 1782. Nice TOTAL seperation wall, uh?

How are those Supreme Court filings going against The Pledge, coin/currency sayings and public prayer, Colbert?..um...I mean Great & Powerful OZ (forgiveness, please!)

And I can't resist degenerating back to that 10th grade level....

REASON AND EXPERIENCE BOTH FORBID US TO EXPECT THAT NATIONAL MORALITY CAN PREVAIL IN EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE

GOOD NIGHT ALMIGHTY OZ!

By cee on October 29, 2006 11:20 PM

Just read your previous entries, OZ....

When you can't win the argument, attack the person's truthfulness....Not going to work, OZ...Barton and the other sources I cite have historical documents just as good as the material you manipulate to make your argument.

Again OZ, no personal information....background, previous religious instruction, exposure to anything except the pablum they feed you robots since the 1960's?

Someone is hiding something nasty that is clouding their judgement, me thinks! Come on, I'm tired of seeing the fire wreathed big brained humanoid projection....let me peak behind the curtain and see that humble and scared man.....

Toto, where are you when I need you?

By cee on October 30, 2006 6:56 AM

Where are those quotes, OZ....

Let's be clear about the definition first....

Secular humanists have developed moral and ethical systems which are independent of divine revelation from a deity. They are based upon such foundational beliefs as:

1 Systems of morality and ethics can be developed through mutual agreement much like we develop laws and social customs.

2 They can be based upon common needs that humans have for survival, security, personal growth and love.

3 Humans are social animals who can make the greatest achievements through mutual cooperation.

4 People will willingly follow humanistic codes because they are effective; reasonable; lead to self esteem; are consistent with one's natural feelings of caring, compassion and sympathy; are accepted by others, and do not lead to condemnation or rejection. No system of rewards and punishment are needed to enforce them.

Do I have the secular humanist practical philosophy correct?

By cee on October 30, 2006 8:39 AM

Two important observations about secular humanism:

1 The incessant drive to revise the historical record regarding the first 200 years of The United States. Every single Secular Humanist I have encountered in my life is fanatical about these issues.

The founding, The US Constitution, the Civil War and subsequent 14th Amendment to the Constituion all are weapons at the ready for the american Secular Humanist. It is amazing that your modus operandi has been so close to the usual, OZ.

My public school education was a total attempt at indoctrination with the lies of Secular Humanism. Despite these false teachings, I know the truth about our country and the last 2000 years of Western Civilization. Historical revisionism is always a tactic of people who want to impose their worldview on others. Tyrants have done this throughout history.

I'll quote humanist, Charles Francis Potter:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"

That's the wonderful thing about Jehovah, He doesn't need Sunday-school to love and nurture those who know Him. Man tries to replace Him with His own wisdom, and it has always fallen short.

2 Just has is has been since it started in Jerusalem, the secular society has always singled out Christianity for special condemnation. Why? Because Christianity is true.

Your vindictive towards me is illustrative of the subtext that has been and always will be. For being so rational, it seems Secular Humanists become over emotional and angry only when confronted by Christians. Like your, "I'll admit reading right-wing filth turns my stomach," every time I have engaged in debate with secularists, they get irrational, have physical symptoms, or become angry, use profanities and insult me, the human being that they have supposedly come to tolerate through rational thought. Seems like a failure in the philosophy to me.

Why are Christians the object of hatred, OZ? Why is the wall there to stop Theism but not there to stop Humanism? We can continue this discussion later, if you want to.

By ScreamThyLastScream on October 30, 2006 9:17 AM

every time I have engaged in debate with secularists, they get irrational, have physical symptoms, or become angry, use profanities and insult me, the human being that they have supposedly come to tolerate through rational thought. Seems like a failure in the philosophy to me.
Posted by: cee at October 30, 2006 08:39 AM

You are another one of the many deluded humans in this country who aren't satisfied to live in a society that allows you to follow the teachings of Jesus. If the founding fathers intended for this to be a Christian country they would have said so in the constitution.

By cee on October 30, 2006 10:32 AM

I am VERY satisfied in my religious freedom. I would have been satisfied in 1950, 1900, 1850 and 1800. The establishment clause has been wonderful in keeping my private religious activity free from government interference.

The problem is that since The Civil War, humanists have decided my private religious beliefs are a threat to them. As a result, they:

1 Changed the establishment clause into the myth of the wall of seperation.

2 Removed any possibility of local or state democracy from deciding what the laws should be.

3 Decided that humanism indocrtination of small children in the public school system is a good thing.

4 Abandoned the original republic government as beautifully outlined in The Federalist Papers for a horrible autocracy that is subject to manipulation and tyrany.

As a parent, I am coersed into allowing my children to be indoctrinated into secular humanism religion through the restrictions of my tax dollars only going to public schools. Where's my freedom to raise my family in what religious doctrine I choose?

Read my posts....."Christian Country" was never my argument. Fighting the outright lie of historical revisionism that the founders were secular humanists has been my objective, and done rather well, if I do say so myself. Colbert, The Great & Powerful OZ, has such distaste for people who believe in God that his goal is to remove such discussion in history, philosophy or ethics. The experiments with human based, rational morality that have failed since time began has not convinced OZ.

By cee on October 30, 2006 10:45 AM

Secular Humanism theorizes:

"People will willingly follow humanistic codes because they are effective; reasonable; lead to self esteem; are consistent with one's natural feelings of caring, compassion and sympathy; are accepted by others, and do not lead to condemnation or rejection. No system of rewards and punishment are needed to enforce them."

What happens to the individual who differs from the code(s)? What are the codes? Who decides what the codes are? Why do we need a code if we automatically know the correct things because we are all rational? Why has this NEVER happened, (even on a small, community scale) in known human events?

By tester on October 30, 2006 12:22 PM

ionolsen33 Very good site. Thanks for author! www_4_1
www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

By Anonymous on October 30, 2006 3:01 PM

OZ:

John Hancock in 1774:

I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America. And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity. And having secured the approbation of our hearts, by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."

He quotes the Jewish prophet Habakkum from the Hebrew scriptures. Nice.

By Colbert on October 30, 2006 6:09 PM

Cee,
More lies from David Barton. Why not just claim instead of attending the fake church services he was the minister? If you're going to lie and make up quotes go all out.
I'll let Barton speak for himself about some of his admitted lies. "Inevitably, the quotes will continue to be heard at the 'popular' level," reads the introduction. "Fret not; the sun will still rise. But at the scholarly level, please refrain from, or at least be cautious in, using any quotation that cannot be authenticated. Thank you for purifying your own waters in the world's rhetorical rivers." "Many people have used quotes from our videos in writing 'Letters to the Editor' or sharing information with friends or public of officials."
Doesn't it bother you that these people (Barton, Chuck Colson, the current White House, etc.) that you idolize think you're an idiot and buffoon who will believe anything. They publicly state you're blind sheep who will follow anything they say and you show them by following their admitted lies. Having blind faith that adults don't lie when you're a child is one thing; when you're an adult it's pathetic. Will nothing undo your extreme brainwashing? You're exactly like Osama bin Laden and the rest of the terrorist nuts. It's scary people like you exist.

Lastly for you for this post, Jefferson did propose our motto: E Pluribus Unum.

Scream,
You don't understand the religious right. According to them, the Constitution doesn't matter. All that matters is the Declaration because that mentions "Nature's God."

By Colbert on October 30, 2006 6:23 PM

Cee,
I just read the post where you claim Barton has sources to back up his lies. I wrote in the post above his quotes admitting his lies. You are the blindest of blind sheep. No one but David Barton knows about his claims or his "historical sources."

I never attended church but most of my relatives and my parents did. My parents stopped attending church when they moved after getting married. They did teach me about the Bible and I read it on my own when I was older. Unlike you, I questioned the mystical stories I read. When I grew older, I developed the ability to think for myself and realized, as Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington, Franklin, etc. did, that the Bible is full of myths and fairy tales. From what I've seen of your Bible-quoting (you quote the same passage ad infinitum) most of my relatives know far more of the Bible than you do. Your child-like knowledge of your one area of "expertise" isn't impressive. In fact, I've probably quoted as many Bible passages on here as you have. For instance, when confronted with my Bible passages condoning slavery, you claimed many Bible passages condemned slavery. But you didn't produce a single one. If you were exposed to secularists your entire life, why did you claim quoting complete Biblical passages constituted blashpemy and hateful attacks? Shouldn't you have been able to argue? Or didn't your pastor indoctrinate you with those talking points?

By Colbert on October 30, 2006 6:40 PM

Cee,
I'll take on secular humanism later. For now, John Hancock was a Federalist who disliked and was disliked by (probably hated) the Jeffersonians.

1. The wall of separation comes from multiple letters of Jefferson and Madison. You have claimed one letter was taken out of context (which it wasn't). Why not deal with the rest of the references? It should be easy if it's only a "myth."

2. Could you be any dumber? For someone who was so appalled at me claiming the Bible sided with slavery, I'd think you would not attack the 13th and 14th Amendments. That is a favorite tactic of racists. The slaveholders certainly agreed that the 14th Amendment is evil.

3. I'll deal with humanism later.

4. How much of the Federalist Papers claims God and the Bible was the reason for the Constitution's language? I must have missed the constant pleas to ratify because God wrote the Constitution.

I thought the problems started in the 1960's? Now you've been re-brainwashed to blame the evil Civil War? It's all those slaves' fault, right cee? If they just didn't have to moan and bitch about their "unfair treatment" and the evil liberals didn't "feel sorry" for them, everything would have been fine. I see Cee was chosen for the CCC.
I'm sorry your God-given right to own slaves was taken away by evil liberals.

By cee on October 30, 2006 11:02 PM

Oh OZ the Magnificent,

The self serving recollections of our wonderful debate about the hebrew and christian scriptures are very intersting. You avoided my initial assertion throughout your silly postings about the rightousness, or in your language, morality of slavery. Passage after passage that you cut and pasted never claimed slavery was what Jehovah intended. In point of fact, His people, Israel, were slaves, then held slaves, and then became slaves again. Each time, the sciptures clearly state these conditions were because of disobedience, sin. The condition we all find ourselves in this world is affected by the sin within our heart: disease, lawlessness, crime, greed, etc. I know this concept is anathema to your sensibilities, OZ, but you are a sinner, as I am a sinner. The law, you so famously ridicule, is but the mirror that reflects the sin....it is the measuring stick simple minds need to know what is right and wrong. Just because your glob of grey matter comes up with some other system of right and wrong does not make it truth.

The founders believed in God, were not secular humanists and I have presented their views with regard to the influence of God in their work.
You just can't admit you were wrong to claim they were Secular Humanists.

These next sentences are the most idiotic words you have posted to date:

"For instance, when confronted with my Bible passages condoning slavery, you claimed many Bible passages condemned slavery. But you didn't produce a single one. If you were exposed to secularists your entire life, why did you claim quoting complete Biblical passages constituted blashpemy and hateful attacks? Shouldn't you have been able to argue? Or didn't your pastor indoctrinate you with those talking points?"

1 None of the passages you presented condoned slavery, OZ. You lie. They mention the historical occurance of slavery and the regulations. None say, "We condone slavery." Siple minded, OZ.

2 You lie again...I never claimed the bible condemned slavery as you defined it in your arguments. Slavery to self, sin and evil are condemned and the remedy quikly given (Christ).

3 You are the first, (believe it or not), atheist I have corresponded/talked with who has specifically attacked the bible. My previous debates about God and the universe were civil and respectful (reread the original post). The way you overcompensate to try make me fearful of your self-inflated intellect is entertaining though. That's why YOU ARE OZ!

My point of that post is that I have studied Biology, History, Medicine. All of my studies were in secular institutions. Your pityful exposure to religion makes you ill equipped to discuss the topic. In fact, you still have not disclosed your professional background.

And what is so ironic, is that although you act like the grand wizard (OZ), you are subservient to the lies indoctrinated into you since childhood. I was so happy to finally get an answer to my request....however, you could barely get one sentence down about yourself before you attacked me again....interesting. The prose and verbiage you employ seems to suggest an insecurity about your belief. The bully tactic of turning on your adversary seems a pattern most suited to the neophyte, not the secure intellectual you are trying too hard to project. I would think about that, OZ. I'll pray for you.

You scoff at the simplicity of my belief. Thank you. My savior, Christ wants me to be like that...."He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

However, I have questioned what role the inspired scriptures play in God's plan for mankind, and unlike you OZ, I know my free will will never choose the right path...no man's will has, no man's will will in the future...this is why Secular Humanist theory has always failed.

Only God is holy. Now, you can try it on your own, or you can allow the indwelling of Christ, the living savior, to change you from within.

The purpose of the bible, both hebrew and chistian scriptures, is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible always approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of Jesus, receiving His salvation – Jesus will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Lastly, I will end with the last words of The LORDS servant Stephen. Do you believe that Abraham was a myth, OZ? Stephen discusses the simple concept of the humble heart that is necessary to stop the hatred that comes from sin. Try to understand it.....

From Acts 7:

"Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. 'Leave your country and your people,' God said, 'and go to the land I will show you.'

"So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living. He gave him no inheritance here, not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child. God spoke to him in this way: 'Your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,' God said, 'and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.' Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.

"Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles. He gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king of Egypt; so he made him ruler over Egypt and all his palace.

"Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our fathers could not find food. When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our fathers on their first visit. On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph's family. After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.

"As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt greatly increased. Then another king, who knew nothing about Joseph, became ruler of Egypt. He dealt treacherously with our people and oppressed our forefathers by forcing them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die.

"At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for in his father's house. When he was placed outside, Pharaoh's daughter took him and brought him up as her own son. Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

"When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit his fellow Israelites. He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian. Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not. The next day Moses came upon two Israelites who were fighting. He tried to reconcile them by saying, 'Men, you are brothers; why do you want to hurt each other?'

"But the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside and said, 'Who made you ruler and judge over us? Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?' When Moses heard this, he fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons.

"After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord's voice: 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.

"Then the Lord said to him, 'Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.'

"This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, 'Who made you ruler and judge?' He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert.

"This is that Moses who told the Israelites, 'God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.' He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.

"But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. They told Aaron, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don't know what has happened to him!' That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: 'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' beyond Babylon.

"Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. Having received the tabernacle, our fathers under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God's favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built the house for him.

"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says:
'Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things?'

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

The scriptures are not a fix-it book. The bible is a love story that points to Christ as Savior. If you approach the bible any other way, without a contrite and humble heart, it will turn your stomach sour. It will be nonsense and a stumbling block.

Lastly OZ.....
You left yourself WIDE open with the Civil War crack at the end of your post at 6:40pm. The history is very clear who were the committed abolitionists (hint: NOT Secular Humanists or 20th century liberals, hint: Christians), and those wonderful Secular Humanists of ancient times past were HORRIBLE slave owners...including those nice greeks and romans. Remember where I grew up, OZ...NJ, I'm not the inbred hick you assumed I was....what is the CCC, anyway? Lovely.....It will be nice to enter this debate about the servitude of mankind under Secular Humanism copmpared to the freedom under Christ as King.

What a wonderful discussion we are going to continue to have about secular man....and his apologist...OZ THE GREAT & POWERFUL!

Night.

By cee on October 31, 2006 7:33 AM

Slavery....let's continue....

John Wesley, an EVANGELICAL Christian, wrote a letter to a man named William Wilberforce (do you know about him, OZ?) Wesley had spoken out forcibly against slavery his whole life. In 1774, he wrote the influential "Thoughts Upon Slavery."

Wilberforce, a member of Parliament, was active at the time in the unsuccessful attempt to pass abolition. Debate continued for several years and finally, in 1807, slavery was ended throughout the British Empire.

The text of the letter is given below. The "tract" to which Wesley refers was written by a former slave, Gustavus Vassa who was born in 1745 in Africa, kidnapped and sold as a slave in Barbados, then received Christ as his personal Savior.

Dear Sir:

Unless the divine power has raised you up to be as "Athanasius against the world," I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of God and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God in the power of His might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.

Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by the circumstance, that a man who has black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a LAW in our Colonies that the OATH of a black man against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this!

That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things is the prayer of, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant,

John Wesley

First, I present this letter to show the style of writing and how God was mentioned....very similar to the founders' quotes...No respected historian will claim John Wesley wasn't a born again Christian....or evangelical....My view is that your claim the founders were Secular Humanists based on their "euphemisms" for God is a pretty weak argument.

Secondly, if we are going to be honest about SECULAR HUMANISM, I would like the debate to be an honest one. I will not allow a label to be put on someone without evidence. I easily blew you out of the water regarding your claim any of the founders were Secular Humanists, but you retreated back to the establishment clause (which you also failed to support), in reaction. Well, let me be clear...the abolition of slavery in the two periods (early 19th century England and Civil War era United States) was truly started by....a hush.....Christians.

The resistance to the abolition was from people, although some claiming to be religious, who were in practice, secularists....just like you.

Just like the Founders debate, the indoctrination by Secular Humanists on your intellect will likely make it impossible to pursuade you to have an open mind to the real reason slavery was ended in the west.....God worked through His people.

Later...work calls.

By Anonymous on October 31, 2006 10:25 AM

Example of Christian abolitionist #1

Samuel Sewall 1700

"The Selling of Joseph: A Memorial"

Forasmuch as Liberty is in real value next unto Life: None ought to part with it themselves, or
deprive others of it, but upon most mature
Consideration.

The numerousness of slaves at this day in the province, and the uneasiness of them under their slavery, hath put many upon thinking whether the foundation of it be firmly and well laid; so as to sustain the vast weight that is built upon it. It is most certain that all men, as they are the Sons of Adam, are Coheirs; and have equal right unto liberty, and all other outward comforts of life.

GOD hath given the Earth [with all its Commodities] unto the Sons of Adam, Psal 115:16. And hath made of One Blood, all Nations of Men, for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation: That they should seek the Lord. Forasmuch then as we are the Offspring of GOD Act 17.26, 27, 29.

Now although the Title given by the last ADAM [Christ], doth infinitely better men's estates, respecting GOD and themselves; and grants them a most beneficial and inviolable lease under the broad seal of Heaven, who were before only tenants at will: Yet through the indulgence of GOD to our First Parents after the Fall, the outward estate of all and every of their children, remains the same, as to one another. So that originally, and naturally, there is no such thing as slavery.

Joseph was rightfully no more a slave to his brethren, than they were to him: and they had no more authority to sell him, than they had to slay him. And if they had nothing to do to sell him; the Ishmaelites bargaining with them, and paying down twenty pieces of silver, could not make a title. Neither could Potiphar have any better interest in him than the Ishmaelites had. Gen. 37.20, 27, 28. For he that shall in this case plead Alteration of Property, seems to have forfeited a great part of his own claim to humanity. There is no proportion between twenty pieces of silver, and LIBERTY. The commodity it self is the claimer. If Arabian gold be imported in any quantities, most are afraid to meddle with it, though they might have it at easy rates; lest if it should have been wrongfully
taken from the owners, it should kindle a fire to the consumption of their whole estate.

'Tis pity there should be more caution used in buying a horse, or a little lifeless dust; than there is in purchasing men and women: Whenas they are the offspring of GOD, and their Liberty is,. . . Auro pretiosior Omni [Isaiah 13:12]. And seeing GOD hath said, He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Exod. 21.16. This law being of everlasting equity, wherein man stealing is ranked amongst the most atrocious of capital crimes: What louder cry can there be made of that celebrated warning Caveat Emptor!

And all things considered, it would conduce more to the welfare of the province, to have white servants for a term of years, than to have slaves for life. Few can endure to hear of a Negro's being made free; and indeed they can seldom use their freedom well; yet their continual aspiring after their forbidden liberty, renders them unwilling servants.

And there is such a disparity in their conditions, colour & hair, that they can never embody with us, and grow up into orderly families, to the peopling of the land: but still remain in our body politick as a kind of extravasat blood [involuntary resident].

As many Negro men as there are among us, so many empty places there are in our Train Bands, and the places taken up of men that might make husbands for our daughters. And the sons and daughters of New England would become more like Jacob, and Rachel, if this slavery were thrust quite out of doors.

Moreover it is too well known what temptations masters are under, to connive at the fornication of their slaves; lest they should be obliged to find them wives, or pay their fines. It seems to be practically pleaded that they might be lawless; 'tis thought much of, that the law should have satisfaction for their thefts, and other immoralities; by which means, Holiness to the Lord, is more rarely engraven upon this sort of servitude.

It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in taking Negros out of Africa, and selling of them here, That which GOD has joined together men do boldly rend asunder [Matt. 19:6]; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives, Parents from their Children.

How horrible is the uncleanness, mortality, if not murder, that the ships are guilty of that bring great crowds of these miserable men, and women. Methinks, when we are bemoaning the barbarous usage of our friends and kinsfolk in Africa: it might not be unseasonable to enquire whether we are not culpable in forcing the Africans to become slaves amongst our selves. And it may be a question whether all the benefit received by Negro slaves, will balance the accompt of cash laid out upon them; and for the redemption of our own enslaved friends out of Africa. Besides all the persons and estates that have perished there.

Obj. 1. These Blackamores are of the Posterity of Cham, and therefore are under the curse of slavery. Gen.9. 25, 26, 27.

Answ. Of all offices, one would not beg this; viz. Uncalled for, to be an executioner of the vindictive wrath of God; the extent and duration of which is to us uncertain. If this ever was a commission; how do we know but that it is long since out of date? Many have found it to their cost, that a prophetical denunciation of judgment against a person or people, would not warrant them to inflict that evil. If it would, Hazael might justify himself in all he did against his Master, and the Israelites, from 2 Kings 8. 10, 12

But it is possible that by cursory reading, this text may have been mistaken. For Canaan is the person cursed three times over, without the mentioning of Cham. Good Expositors suppose the curse entailed on him, and that this prophey was accomplished in the extirpation of the Canaanites, and in the servitude of the Gibeonites.

Whereas the Blackmores are not descended of Canaan, but of Cush. Psal. 68. 31. Princes shall come out of Egypt [Mizmim] Ethiopia [Cush] shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Under which names, all Africa may be comprehended; and their Promised Conversion ought to be prayed for. Jer. 13. 23. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? This shows that black men are the posterity of Cush: Who time out of mind have been distinguished by their colour. And for want of the true, Ovid assigns a fabulous cause of it.

Obj. 2. The Nigers are brought out of a pagan country, into places where the Gospel is preached.

Answ. Evil must not be done, that good may come of it. The extraordinary and comprehensive benefit accruing to the Church of God, and to Joseph personally, did not rectify his brethrens' sale of him.

Obj. 3. The Africans have Wars one with another: Our Ships bring lawful Captives taken in those Wars.

Answ. For ought is known, their wars are much such as were between Jacob's sons and their brother Joseph. If they be between town and town; provincial, or national: Every war is upon one side unjust. An unlawful war can't make lawful captives. And by receiving, we are in danger to promote, and partake in their barbarous cruelties. I am sure, if some Gentlemen should go down to the Brewsters to take the air, and fish: And a stronger party from Hull should surprise them, and sell them for slaves to a ship outward bound: they would think themselves unjustly dealt with; both by sellers and buyers.

And yet 'tis to be feared, we have no other kind of title to our Nigers. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matt. 7.12.

Obj. 4. Abraham had servants bought with his money, and born in his house.

Answ. Until the circumstances of Abraham's purchase be recorded, no argument can be drawn from it. In the mean time, Charity obliges us to conclude, that he knew it was lawful and good.

It is observable that the Israelites were strictly forbidden the buying, or selling one another for slaves. Levit. 25. 39, 46. Jer. 34. 8 . . . 22. And GOD gaged His Blessing in lieu of any loss they might conceipt they suffered thereby. Deut. 15. 18.

And since the partition wall is broken down, inordinate self love should likewise be demolished. GOD expects that Christians should be of a more ingenuous and benign frame of spirit. Christians should carry it to all the world, as the Israelites were to carry it one towards another. And for men obstinately to persist in holding their neighbours and brethren under the rigor of perpetual bondage, seems to be no proper way of gaining assurance that God has given them spiritual freedom. Our blessed Saviour has altered the measures of the ancient love-song, and set it to a most excellent new tune, which all ought to be ambitious of Learning. Matt. 5. 43, 44. John 13.34. These Ethiopians, as black as they are; seeing they are the sons and daughters of the First Adam, the brethren and sisters of the Last ADAM, and the Offspring of GOD; they ought to be treated with a respect agreeable.

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:9-12

This was published, by the way, after Judge Sewell recanted his pronouncements in The Salem Witch Trials, and asked for forgiveness. This passage of the Salem history is not discussed in Secular Humanists circles.

BTW, OZ, I also use this great man's tract as a more eloquent rebuff of your swill about the bible condoning slavery.

More to come.

By cee on October 31, 2006 10:54 AM

the 10:25am post was mine....cee

Example of Christian abolitionist #2

BENJAMIN LAY 1737

"SLAVE-KEEPERS That keep the Innocent in Bondage,
APOSTATES"

No greater nor no better Law, say I, than to love God above all, and all our Fellow-Creatures as ourselves; these two contain Law, Prophets and Gospel, do to all as we would be done by. No greater Sin Hell can invent, than to prophane and blaspheme the pure and Holy Truth, which is God all in all, and remove God’s Creatures made after his own Image, from all the Comforts of Life, and their Country and procure for them, and bring them into all the miseries that Dragons, Serpents, Devils and Hypocrites, can procure and think of; these things are carried on by Christians, so called, and Ministers too, in the very greatest appearance of Demurity and Sanctity in the whole World, that ever I read or heard of; God which is the Truth, faith we shall not eat this cursed Fruit; our Ministers say we may eat, and lawfully too; which shall we believe?

We pretend not to love fighting with carnal Weapons, nor to carry Swords by our sides, but carry a worse thing in the Heart, as will I believe appear by and by; what, I pray and beseech you, dear friends, by the tender Mercies of our God, to consider, can be greater Hypocrisy, and plainer contradiction, than for us as a People, to refuse to bear Arms, or to pay them that do, and yet purchase the Plunder, the Captives, for Slaves at a very great Price, thereby justifying their selling of them, and the War, by which they were or are obtained; nor doth this satisfy, but their Children also are kept in Slavery, ad infinitum; is not this plainly and substantially trampling the most Blessed and Glorious Testimony that ever was or ever will be in the World, under our Feet, and committing of Iniquity with, both Hands earnestly? Is this the way to convince the poor Slaves, or our Children, or Neighbours, or the World? Is it not the way rather to encourage and strengthen them in their Infidelity, and Atheism, and their Hellish Practice of Fighting, Murthering, killing and Robbing one another, to the end of the World.

Please, OZ, read further at http://antislavery.eserver.org/religious/allslavekeepersfinal/allslavekeepersfinal.html

Historically, Quakers were amonst the strongest allies for the American slave.

By cee on October 31, 2006 11:13 AM

Example of Christian abolitionist #3

Olaudah Equiano 1789

Commenting on a book arguing "that the Negro race is an inferior species of mankind", he wrote indignantly: "Oh fool! See the 17th chapter of the Acts, verse 26: 'God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth'".

Working out the logical implications of the text, Equiano argued in favour of racial intermarriage, and went on to marry Susannah Cullen of Soham in Cambridgeshire.

By cee on October 31, 2006 12:36 PM

Example of Christian abolitionist #3

Frederick Douglass 1890

"I have seen dark hours in my life, and I have seen the darkness gradually disappearing, and the light gradually increasing. One by one, I have seen obstacles removed, errors corrected, prejudices softened, proscriptions relinquished, and my people advancing in all the elements that make up the sum of general welfare. I remember that God reigns in eternity, and that, whatever delays, disappointments and discouragements may come, truth, justice, liberty and humanity will prevail."

Some details about his faith:

Reverend Hanson, a white Methodist minister, and Charles Johnson, a black lay preacher, soon converted the adolescent Frederick to Christianity. As a result, Frederick came to understand more fully man's seemingly inexorable need to identify with a supreme force at once both beyond and inextricably bound with him. Through religion, he would later write, "I finally found my burden lightened, and my heart relieved. I loved all mankind, slaveholders not excepted, though I abhorred slavery more than ever." He experienced a spiritual rebirth. "I saw the world in a new light, and my great concern was to have everybody converted." His desire to know the Bible's secrets intensified his general longing to learn. He retrieved from gutters miscellaneous pages of the Bible which he cleaned, dried, and studied.

From his autobiography

By cee on October 31, 2006 2:33 PM

12:36PM was #4.....

Now....Christian abolitionist example #5

Harriet Beecher Stowe 1852

"I did not write it. God wrote it. I merely did His dictation." (on Uncle Tom's Cabin)

From UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, chapter 41

Tom heard the message with a forewarning heart; for he knew all the plan of the fugitives' escape, and the place of their present concealment; -- he knew the deadly character of the man he had to deal with, and his despotic power. But he felt strong in God to meet death, rather than betray the helpless.

He sat his basket down by the row, and, looking up, said, "Into thy hands I commend my spirit! Thou hast redeemed me, oh Lord God of truth!" and then quietly yielded himself to the rough, brutal grasp with which Quimbo seized him.

"Ay, ay!" said the giant, as he dragged him along; ye'll cotch it, now! I'll boun' Mas'r's back 's up high! No sneaking out, now! Tell ye, ye'll get it, and no mistake! See how ye'll look, now, helpin' Mas'r's niggers to run away! See what ye'll get!"

The savage words none of them reached that ear! -- a higher voice there was saying, "Fear not them that kill the body, and, after that, have no more that they can do." Nerve and bone of that poor man's body vibrated to those words, as if touched by the finger of God; and he felt the strength of a thousand souls in one. As he passed along, the trees. and bushes, the huts of his servitude, the whole scene of his degradation, seemed to whirl by him as the landscape by the rushing ear. His soul throbbed, -- his home was in sight, -- and the hour of release seemed at hand.

"Well, Tom!" said Legree, walking up, and seizing him grimly by the collar of his coat, and speaking through his teeth, in a paroxysm of determined rage, "do you know I've made up my mind to KILL YOU?"

"It's very likely, Mas'r," said Tom, calmly.

"I have," said Legree, with a grim, terrible calmness, "done -- just -- that -- thing, Tom, unless you'll tell me what you know about these yer gals!"

Tom stood silent.

"D'ye hear?" said Legree, stamping, with a roar like that of an incensed lion. "Speak!"

"I han't got nothing to tell, Mas'r," said Tom, with a slow, firm, deliberate utterance.

"Do you dare to tell me, ye old black Christian, ye don't know?" said Legree.

Tom was silent.

"Speak!" thundered Legree, striking him furiously. Do you know anything?"

"I know, Mas'r; but I can't tell anything. I can die!"

Legree drew in a long breath; and, suppressing his rage, took Tom by the arm, and, approaching his face almost to his, said, in a terrible voice, "Hark 'e, Tom! -- ye think, 'cause I've let you off before, I don't mean what I say; but, this time, I've made up my mind, and counted the cost. You've always stood it out again' me: now, I'll conquer ye, or kill ye! -- one or t' other. I'll count every drop of blood there is in you, and take 'em, one by one, till ye give up!"

Tom looked up to his master, and answered, "Mas'r, if you was sick, or in trouble, or dying, and I could save ye, I'd give ye my heart's blood; and, if taking every drop of blood in this poor old body would save your precious soul, I'd give 'em freely, as the Lord gave his for me. O, Mas'r! don't bring this great sin on your soul! It will hurt you more than 't will me! Do the worst you can, my troubles'll be over soon; but, if ye don't repent, yours won't never end!"

Like a strange snatch of heavenly music, heard in the lull of a tempest, this burst of feeling made a moment's blank pause. Legree stood aghast, and looked at Tom; and there was such a silence, that the tick of the old clock could be heard, measuring, with silent touch, the last moments of mercy and probation to that hardened heart.

It was but a moment. There was one hesitating pause, -- one irresolute, relenting thrill, -- and the spirit of evil came back, with seven-fold vehemence; and Legree, foaming with rage, smote his victim to the ground.

Scenes of blood and cruelty are shocking to our ear and heart. What man has nerve to do, man has not nerve to hear. What brother-man and brother-Christian must suffer, cannot be told us, even in our secret chamber, it so harrows the soul! And yet, oh my country! these things are done under the shadow of thy laws! O, Christ! thy church sees them, almost in silence!

But, of old, there was One whose suffering changed an instrument of torture, degradation and shame, into a symbol of glory, honor, and immortal life; and, where His spirit is, neither degrading stripes, nor blood, nor insults, can make the Christian's last struggle less than glorious.

Was he alone, that long night, whose brave, loving spirit was bearing up, in that old shed, against buffeting and brutal stripes?

Nay! There stood by him ONE, -- seen by him alone, -- "like unto the Son of God."

The tempter stood by him, too, -- blinded by furious, despotic will, -- every moment pressing him to shun that agony by the betrayal of the innocent. But the brave, true heart was firm on the Eternal Rock. Like his Master, he knew that, if he saved others, himself he could not save; nor could utmost extremity wring from him words, save of prayers and holy trust.

"He's most gone, Mas'r," said Sambo, touched, in spite of himself, by the patience of his victim.

"Pay away, till he gives up! Give it to him! -- give it to him!" shouted Legree. I'll take every drop of blood he has, unless he confesses!"

Tom opened his eyes, and looked upon his master. "Ye poor miserable critter!" he said, "there ain't no more ye can do! I forgive ye, with all my soul!" and he fainted entirely away.

"I b'lieve, my soul, he's done for, finally," said Legree, stepping forward, to look at him. "Yes, he is! Well, his mouth's shut up, at last, -- that's one comfort!"

Yes, Legree; but who shall shut up that voice in thy soul? that soul, past repentance, past prayer, past hope, in whom the fire that never shall be quenched is already burning!

Yet Tom was not quite gone. His wondrous words and pious prayers had struck upon the hearts of the imbruted blacks, who had been the instruments of cruelty upon him; and, the instant Legree withdrew, they took him down, and, in their ignorance, sought to call him back to life, -- as if that were any favor to him.

"Sartin, we 's been doin' a drefful wicked thing!" said Sambo; "hopes Mas'r'll have to 'count for it, and not we."

They washed his wounds, -- they provided a rude bed, of some refuse cotton, for him to lie down on; and one of them, stealing up to the house, begged a drink of brandy of Legree, pretending that he was tired, and wanted it for himself. He brought it back, and poured it down Tom's throat.

"O, Tom!" said Quimbo, "we's been awful wicked to ye!"

"I forgive ye, with all my heart!" said Tom, faintly.

"O, Tom! do tell us who is Jesus, anyhow?" said Sambo; -- "Jesus, that's been a standin' by you so, all this night! -- Who is he?"

The word roused the failing, fainting spirit. He poured forth a few energetic sentences of that wondrous One, -- his life, his death, his everlasting presence, and power to save.

They wept, -- both the two savage men.

"Why didn't I never hear this before?" said Sambo; "but I do believe! -- I can't help it! Lord Jesus, have mercy on us!"

"Poor critters!" said Tom, "I'd be willing to bar' all I have, if it'll only bring ye to Christ! O, Lord! give me these two more souls, I pray!"

That prayer was answered!

###
And the last speech of George..

"My good friends," said George, as soon as he could get a silence, "there'll be no need for you to leave me. The place wants as many hands to work it as it did before. We need the same about the house that we did before. But, you are now free men and free women. I shall pay you wages for your work, such as we shall agree on. The advantage is, that in case of my getting in debt, or dying, - things that might happen, - you cannot now be taken up and sold. I expect to carry on the estate, and to teach you what, perhaps, it will take you some time to learn, - how to use the rights I give you as free men and women. I expect you to be good, and willing to learn; and I trust in God that I shall be faithful, and willing to teach. And now, my friends, look up, and thank God for the blessing of freedom.

"An aged, partriarchal negro, who had grown gray and blind on the estate, now rose, and, lifting his trembling hand said, "Let us give thanks unto the Lord!" As all kneeled by one consent, a more touching and hearty Te Deum never ascended to heaven, though borne on the peal of organ, bell and cannon, than came from that honest old heart.

"On rising, another struck up a Methodist hymn, of which the burden was,

"The year of Jubilee is come, -
Return, ye ransomed sinners, home.

"One thing more," said George, as he stopped the congratulations of the throng; "you all remember our good old Uncle Tom?

George here gave a short narration of the scene of his death, and of his loving farewell to all on the place, and added,

"It was on his grave, my friends, that I resolved, before God, that I would never own another slave, while it was possible to free him; that nobody, through me, should ever run the risk of being parted from home and friends, and dying on a lonely plantation, as he died. So, when you rejoice in your freedom, think that you owe it to that good old soul, and pay it back in kindness to his wife and children. Think of your freedom, every time you see Uncle Tom's Cabin; and let it be a memorial to put you all in mind to follow in his steps, and be honest and faithful and Christian as he was."

Great novel! I highly recommend reading it, OZ.

By cee on October 31, 2006 6:05 PM

Christian abolitionist example #6

Phillis Wheatley 1773

"In every human Breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom;
it is impatient of Oppression,
and pants for deliverance;
and by the Leave of our modern Egyptians
I will assert
that the same Principle lives in us.
God grant Deliverance in his own Way and Time"

And this evangelical gem spoken to the gradutes in Cambridge (Harvard)

While an intrinsic ardor prompts to write,
The muses promise to assist my pen;
'Twas not long since I left my native shore
The land of errors, and Egyptian gloom.
Father of mercy, 'twas Thy gracious hand
Brought me in safety from those dark abodes.

Students, to you 'tis given to scan the heights
Above, to traverse the ethereal space,
And mark the systems of revolving worlds.
Still more, ye sons of science ye receive
The blissful news by messengers from heav'n,
How Jesus blood for your redemption flows.
See Him with hands outstretched upon the cross;
Immense compassion in His bosom glows;
He hears revilers, nor resents their scorn:
What matchless mercy in the Son of God!
When the whole human race by sin had fall'n,
He deigned to die that they might rise again,
And share with in the sublimest skies,
Life without death, and glory without end.

Improve your privileges while they stay,
Ye pupils, and each hour redeem, that bears
Or good or bad report of you to heav'n.
Let sin, that baneful evil to the soul,
By you be shunned, nor once remit your guard;
Suppress the deadly serpent in its egg.
Ye blooming plants of human race divine,
An Ethiop tells you 'tis your greatest foe;
Its transient sweetness turns to endless pain,
And immense perdition sinks the soul.

By cee on October 31, 2006 7:22 PM

Almighty OZ,

Before I continue with the parade, I would like to make a side point.

Your idiotic assumption about my view of The Civil War testifies to your knee-jerk mentality. I was trying to imply The affect the war on state's rights and Federalism is the fulcrum that gave secularists access to more aspects of everyone's lives (especially the public school system). The 14th amendment, although passed with the noble intention of helping the freed slaves, was not used properly by the courts in the beginning, and is now overused (especially since 1962) by the federal judiciary.

Prior to the ratification of the Amendment, for people in the original class of citizenship, their state courts dealt with virtually every matter that was appropriate to be brought before a court, and the federal courts could only hear matters that dealt exclusively with issues in the U.S. Constitution, or federal action in connection with the first 13 amendments. In other words, the line between state and federal authority in the lives of citizens was crystal clear.

Although the 14th Amendment was intended to serve a laudable purpose, the unintended consequence was to radically shift the balance of federalism and blur the lines almost beyond distinction.

Examples:

1 For people in the original class of citizenship, the courts of the United States had almost no jurisdiction in their affairs. Opportunity for federal intervention in the lives of the average American was virtually nil.

2 After the 14th Amendment was ratified, the United States government became the preeminent protector of every "right" of the persons granted citizenship by the Amendment. This meant that the federal government could tell the states how they could and could not deal with "its" citizens. In other words, a state legislature could vote to control this or that within it borders relating the proper view of life in that state, but the federal government had the right to say, "That's fine for your citizens [original class], but we won't permit you to apply that law to our citizens [14th Amendment] who may be living in your state". This meant that for the first time in history, the United States government could haul a state official into federal court for enforcing a law duly passed by the elected officials of the state for which he worked! While this was a positive tool for protecting the recently freed black slaves from egregious state legislation such as Jim Crow, it flung the door open to federal intervention in the states in a way the Founding Fathers had never intended, nor would have permitted.

This is my problem in relation to the 14th Amendment and The Federalist Papers, OZ. The Federalist Papers are now a neat historical debate with little practical effect in the gargatuan, over-reaching federal government we have now.

I am for local government, local control, within the boundries of the original intent of The US Constitution and its amendments (properly applied) and the continued respect of the inalienable rights stipulated under The Declaration of Independence.

But now some liberal twit in San Francisco can bring a case that will effect me, (ususally negatively), in NJ. The Founders would have been shocked. The ACLU can court shop for a biased ear in the Federal Judiciary and get some fool ruling.

I'd prefer meeting with my fellow citizens in a cold Municipal Building basement and debate, compromise and agree on laws that are specific for the needs of my community. This is becoming less and less useful for issues that I hold dear. Two imprtant examples like:

1 Educating my children.....I would like to have choice where my children attend school and not be coersed into putting them into the Secular Humanist brainwashing academies that have been erected since the 1960's.

2 I would like to express my religious faith in public in an orderly, and peaceful manner as is prescribed by my doctrine, without the interference of some liberal maniac 1000 miles away.

The irony is that you liberals complain so much about an imagenary overbearing federal executive that has shown no evidence he is violating ANY of your rights, but have no problem with the documented overbearing federal judiciary and overbearing federal legislature imposing rule over the last 100 years.

There was a better way, and it was trashed....That way was Federalism.

By cee on October 31, 2006 7:58 PM

Christian abolitionist example #7

Ottabah Cugoano 1787

"The claim that the Old Testament sanctioned slavery was ‘the greatest bulwark of defence which the advocates and favourers of slavery can advance'. [This claim is] an inconsistent and diabolical use of the sacred writings. How ironic it was to see slave-traders ransacking the Pentateuch to legitimate slavery while blithely ignoring texts which made slave trading a capital crime: ‘He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death' (Exodus 21:16; also Deuteronomy 24:7).

By Colbert on October 31, 2006 9:45 PM

Cee,
First, I'm glad you've admitted God doesn't care about the Ten Commandments or prayer in school and that the Constitution and our laws are not based on the Bible or God.

However, I'd like to get your big picture. I'm not sure what your major hope is. You keep saying the Founders wanted people to be free to practice their private personal beliefs as if that isn't the case now. I asked you to tell me about your last arrest due to reading the Bible or attending church. You never did. Did the cops burn your Bibles? Burn your house down for reading the Bible? Send you to Gitmo for reading the Bible?
How exactly are your abilities to practice your personal religious beliefs being attacked by the federal government?

I've shown murders, rapes, wars, other evil things occured for centuries. As Jefferson, Madison, Paine, etc. said, the clergy (including Christian clergy) were some of the greatest tyrants in human history. Religion has probably been the biggest cause of wars in history. Protestants have been fighting Catholics in Ireland for centuries. England was involved in this and other religious fighting. World War I had religious overtones. Hitler used Christian rhetoric and slaughtered Jews. The Sunnis and Shias and Muslims and Jews have been fighting for centuries. Prostitution has been around for centuries. Slavery has occurred around the world for centuries. After slavery ended here we had another century-plus of legal racism. Slavery still exists today in parts of the world. I pointed out that we didn't "kick God out of the schools" in 1962 as you claimed but assume we did. All these horrible things and more were occuring while God was in our schools and a major partner of governments all over the world. We are far more religious than western Europe. Roughly 90% of Americans claim to be Christian (which means not all our problems can be blamed on atheists). Yet western Europe has far lower crime rates, murder rates, rape rates, STD rates, abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, etc. In short, western Europe, judging by statistics, is far less religious but far more moral than we are. The same is true of blue states as opposed to red states. So my question for you: what is your point about religion and government? Do we need a formal partnership? Should the Pope be our President since the biggest denomination is Catholic? Should we pray more? Should teachers force kids to pray all day? Will this automatically end all crime and divorce? If you have the silver bullet to end all our ills, let's hear it.

By Colbert on November 1, 2006 12:34 AM

Cee,
Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and many Founders were followers of Enlightenment rationalism which is connected to humanism. A humanist isn't required to be an atheist. You're simplistically and falsely equating humanism with atheism. You use your false assumption to "prove" none of the Founders were humanists. They were certainly rationalists which is deeply connected to humanism. Deism is also related to humanism. And the Founders mentioned were deists. They admit as much in their correspondence. The overwhelming evidence garnered from reading through their correspondence shows they intended a rational secular nation where people could have their private religious beliefs but would be encouraged to throw off the shackles of the tyranneous priests. All you did was claim quotes from Supreme Court decisions from 1900 and 1962 and from JFK, Truman, FDR "proved" what Jefferson really thought. And you also provided madeup quotes and events that never happened from an admitted liar (David Barton) to "prove" your case. If my quotes were taken out of context, why did you not explain the true context? Didn't Barton have any lies ready for that?

Jefferson was one of the main people pushing the public school system. I've shown you quotes of his wanting religion out of the schools. His atheistic University of Virginia is a great example of his thoughts on education. I'm as mad as you about the terrible job our schools do educating our children. However, the international test used to determine rankings, which rightists always (correctly) point to, doesn't include any questions on religion or creationism. Spending part of the school day teaching creationism like you want would only take away valuable time from teaching science, math, English, etc. (the stuff that is actually on the test). So, while I share your anger, your prescription would only make things worse.

You claim there is no evidence Bush is taking away anyone's rights or violating the Constitution. Since you live in the faith-based world and don't believe in facts or reality, maybe a right-wing organization can convince you. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

You finally found a website to provide you talking points about slavery. Of course, most of what you have is Christian persons condemnning slavery on their own and the few Biblical passages don't directly mention slavery. I have more passages directly mentioning slavery which fail to condemn it than you have period. You even admit the abolitionists "used the more numerous biblical condemnations of oppression to justify fighting slavery." The Bible condemns oppression of people.
But the Bible calls slaves "property," "money" and other terms that indicate they aren't people. Thus, it's doubtful whether the Bible considered slaves included in the condemnation of oppressing people. Next you said this: "I read [the Biblical passages] and they seem like regulations on treatment of slaves." As I mentioned (which you failed to respond to), writing regulations on treatment of slaves, which allow beating, sex, killing, is condoning slavery. Certainly being forced into a job wheer you're allowed to be beaten and killed can't be seen as a position of honor as you claimed. You never produced any Emperors who were former slaves as you claimed existed. Also, oddly, you contradicted your brainwashed talking points on this. Here's what you said in this thread: "those wonderful Secular Humanists of ancient times past were HORRIBLE slave owners...including those nice greeks and romans." Here's what you said to defend your case in the other thread: "it was greek and one could also jusly translate the word to servant." The website you copied that from mentions the Romans as being the people to whom slavery was an honor. To recap, you first claimed slavery in Greece and Rome was an honor and then attacked the Romans and Greeks for being evil monsters because they owned slaves. So slavery (the same time in the same places) was good when the Bible condoned it but bad when you found right-wing websites to claim human secularists condoned it. Is slavery good or bad? I'll wait for you to decide which talking points to follow. Tomorrow I'll post some quotes from pro-slavery people who defended their favorite instition with Biblical passages.

By cee on November 1, 2006 7:36 AM

Almighty OZ,

Once again, the man behind the cutrain tries to pull the curtain back as the little dog exposes his silly act.....

YOU said the founders would be considered secular humanists by today's religious zealots.....You made that silly assumption....Time and again I proved you wrong...They were ALL God fearing men who believed in an afterlife, and some believed Jesus died for their sins. You have become a broken record, OZ.

There were atheists around back at the time of the founding, by the way. Why were they not the ones to bring forth the great wall of seperation you think exists? You fight like a two year old over a toy he thinks is his....Your goal is clear....Control of history is control of minds...Another indoctrination point of you lefty fascists.

I will continue to post brave Christians who contributed to the difficult abolition of millions of slaves. Robert may get upset because there are hundreds....Few Secular Humanists or atheists...in fact.....ZERO found so far with my research, but I'll let you know.

Did you read Sewell's great tract, OZ? It is simply perfect in shutting down your defense that misreads God's word. These brave brothers and sisters had the foundation of the holy scriptures to help them see that slavery was wrong, and you are going to continue to try (feebly), to denigrate that foundation. Secular Humanist history seems not to be so intellectually disciplined and detached! I guess the science is like that too!

You also try (feebly) to rewrite what I post....That's fine because I am sure only the two of us are reading this stuff. However, I will try, once more, the concept of God in the country's founding......oy.....

I posted: "The rules do not matter....the laws are reflective of God's holiness. God does not care about shopping on Sunday, praying to Him in the school or the right doctrine. He loves those he created and wants them to know Him. Quote after quote supports this loving view of "the sky fairy," you atheists degrade and abuse. These men would not have agreed with you, they would have been repelled by your thoughts."

As usual, a self deluded intellectual takes one sentence out of context and runs with it. OZ, you are pathetic. In context of my post, I was trying to say that the founders view of God was not just as a judge/enforcer of rules. He was a loving deity who gave His chereshed world inalienable rights. This idea, this CORRECT view of Jehovah is the starting point of their philosophy that runs through their actions.

You are trying to project a characterization of God onto the minds of the founders. You are wrong. God is not just a judge who says, "you broke this law, here is your punishment, next case." He is so much more. The bible illustrates this beutifully, and the founders knew their bible.

My statement was in the context of belief as illustrated through the founder's writings and actions. THEY BELIEVED IN GOD. THEY BELIEVED IN A BENEVOLENT GOD THAT ALSO DEMANDED CERTAIN BEHAVIOR. THEY BELIEVED IN A GOD THAT BECAUSE HE DEMANDED CERTAIN BEHAVIOR, CREATED RIGHTS THAT WERE INHERENT. The Declaration AND The Constitution reflect this. Your insistence in the bright light of history borders on delusional.

Deism is not more connected to humanism as is polytheism. No quote you provided by any of the founders, from Paine to Henry, even came close to reflecting the main component of Secular Humanism:

I find this practical aspect of your philosophy naive and dangerous. I wish we could bring the founders back and ask their assessment....Oh boy.

So OZ, work calls....I will deal with your other wizard flourishes of fire and smoke later mixed in between my parade of Christian abolitionists....Yes, a parade....a march....like the great hymn from 1861 ends....

In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea,
with a glory in His bosom
that transfigures you and me;
as he died to make men holy,
let us live to make men free;
while God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory
of the morning on the wave,
he is wisdom to the mighty,
he is honor to the brave;
so the world shall be His footstool,
and the soul of wrong his slave,
our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC by Julia Ward Howe

By cee on November 1, 2006 8:04 AM

With regard to the link you gave me (I love the Cato institute, by the way....they are great Federalists), I am glad you want to return to the days of Federalism, OZ! I do too.

Cato says:

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

###
Mmm, three of those four powers Bush is using were specifically granted by the overbearing federal legislature...campaign finance reform, Patriot Act & Detainee bill, and the last one by the overbearing federal legislature, AND the overbearing federal judiciary VIA THE PASSAGE & MISAPPLICATION OF THE 14th AMENDMENT!

Thanks for agreeing to my argument about Federlism, OZ. Please use Cato more often. I know I have.

Your humble servant,
cee

By cee on November 1, 2006 11:10 AM

Speaking of Julia Ward Howe.....

Christian abolitionist example #8

Although under the influence of her husband she later professed a Unitarian theology, Julia Ward Howe, like many other Christians during the period, saw The Civil War as God's holy judgement on a nation that had permitted the evil of slavery.

Three significant faith quotes from her poem, THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC:

1 Glory! Glory! Hallelujah

Hallelujah is hebrew for, "Praise The LORD," LORD also translated, "I AM." Christ refers to Himself as, "I AM."

2 "I have read a fiery Gospel
writ in burnished rows of steel;
'As ye deal with My contemners,
so with you My grace shall deal';
Let the Hero, born of woman,
crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.

The Gospel, or good news, always means Christ's dying for the sins of all. Those that contemn or despise Christ include the devil, or serpent, which was involved with the first prophesy of Christ's coming in Genesis 3:15....

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

3 As He died to make men holy,
let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]

He of course, is the aforementioned, Christ. This is another pronouncemnt of the gospel. Note the connection between belief in the good news (gospel) and the fight to end slavery.

By cee on November 1, 2006 11:50 AM

Christian abolitionist example #9

Harriet Tubman

"I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me."

"But I was free and THEY should be free. I would make a home in the North and bring them there, God helping me."

"Harriet was now left alone, . . . She turned her face toward the north, and fixing her eyes on the guiding star, and committing her way unto the Lord, she started again upon her long, lonely journey. She believed that there were one or two things she had a right to, liberty or death."

From "Harriet Tubman - the Moses of Her People"
by Sarah H. Bradford 1901

By cee on November 1, 2006 4:14 PM

Christian abolitionist example #10

Bejamin Rush 1794

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."

Rush was also a signer of The Declaration of Independence and cofounder, with Benjamin Franklin, of America's first antislavery society in 1774.

By cee on November 1, 2006 4:59 PM

Colbert (OZ the Magnificent) asked: "How exactly are your abilities to practice your personal religious beliefs being attacked by the federal government?"

The practice of my personal religious beliefs involves raising my children based on biblical principles. These principles are very deeply held and important to my wife and me.

I pay close to 5000/year in local property taxes as well as large sums in state and federal income taxes that provide the funding for the buildings, staff and materials in the common schools of my community.

The common schools are forbidden to use the bible for moral instruction. The use of the bible for moral instruction was struck down in 1948 by the federal judiciary. I want my children instructed from the bible.

I have no access to the funds I contributed to the local, state and federal government that pay for my children's public education tuition.

This is a violation of my relgious beliefs because I am being coersed, economically, to send my children, 6 hours a day, to an environment that teaches a philosophy 180 degress from my personal religious beliefs.....Secular Humanism.

So, there you go, OZ. Your fascist state known as The United States Public School System is oppressing people who would like to choose the education for their children and not have them indoctrinated into the materialistic, narcissistic Secular Humanism lie. It is my religious belief that is placed on the opposite side of that silly wall secularists have insisted on that prevents my child from receiving instruction that I pay for through my taxes. In fact, they are receiving an inferior education not only about morals and values during that 6 hour day.......but also poor instruction in history (because it has been screened and censored by Secular Humanists), science (because it has been screened and censored by secular humanists) and literature (ditto).

School vouchers would help this violation, but Secular Humanists use the establishment clause to destroy that program as well.

OZ, you are an apologist for something akin to the Hitler Youth of the 1930's. Congratulations.

By cee on November 1, 2006 5:26 PM

Christian abolitionist example #11

Abraham Booth 1792

From his sermon: "Commerce in the Human Species, and the Enslaving of Innocent Persons, inimical to the Laws of Moses and the Gospel of Christ"

"That slavery, against which I am going to plead, is not of a civil or political kind, but entirely of apersonal nature. For though it is much to be wished that liberty, in a civil or political sense, may be enjoyed and flourish, without licentiousness; yet I never thought subjects of that nature proper to be discussed in the pulpit, and especially on the Lord's day. But the exercise of moral justice, of benevolence, and humanity, being enforced by every principle of evangelical truth; an endeavor to promote those virtuous affections toward our extremely degraded and oppressed fellow creatures, the Negroes, must be completely consistent with the commands of divine law, the grace of the glorious gospel, and the solemnities of public worship."

Furthermore....

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, is another of our Lord's precepts. This admirably just and comprehensive command, requires each of us to treat every man, as we might reasonably wish every one to treat us, were situations and circumstances reversed. It considers every man AS A MAN, and requires that he be so treated. It impartially views every man, as having capacities, feelings, and rights, peculiar to his own species: and it forbids those capacities to be insulted by degradation, those feelings by unmerited pain, and those rights by injustice. But is not the horrid MAN-TRADE, and the detestable connections in which it stands, a manifest outrage on this most salutary precept?"

By Colbert on November 1, 2006 9:38 PM

Cee,
As usual, you didn't respond to most of my points. I guess David Barton doesn't have talking points dealing with them. You told me to read Sewell's tract to adress my slavery points. If I wanted to argue with Sewell I could write to him. Aren't you smart enough to read it yourself and write down the relevant parts? I assume he argues slavery is a good thing as you did and then says the Bible condemns oppression. He can't point to the Biblical passages which explicitly condemn slavery because, as you admitted, they don't exist. You've provided more examples of people who claimed Christianity was anti-slavery. However, this was their personal view with no Biblical passages directly condemning slavery to support them. In other words, "anything I think is what God thinks and anything the Bible explicitly says is wrong if I don't believe it." Nice try but the reality-based world doesn't buy it. As you know, there were Christians on each side of the slavery issue. The pro-slavery side had indisputable Biblical passages to support their case; the abolitionists didn't.

By cee on November 1, 2006 10:01 PM

Colbert (OZ):

You did not read my posts very well.

So far, you have been unable to present 1, that's one, Secular Humanist who did anything to free the African Slaves in The United States, or in the British colonies. Should I continue to hold my breath?

Wow, a pattern OZ....you couldn't show me 1, that's one, Secular Humanist who was part of the founding of the USA.

You never answer my posts.....because you have nothing, nada, O.

Unlike YOU, I answered your silliness. I spent precious brain function answering your silliness about The 14th Amendment, and your silliness about the federal government's violation of my relgious liberty, and your silliness about God's rules. Silly, silly, silly little man behind the curtain.

The 11 brave CHRISTIANS, who knew their bibles, took great personal risks in their actions....and you discredit their position. Nice.

How about reading UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, OZ? Does Uncle Tom bother you because he loves Christ and forgives his killer? Does that bother you, OZ, because he loves and doesn't hate? Please answer, I'd really like to know.

Secular Humanism is void and loveless, just like the universe you have created for your own reality, OZ. I feel sorry for you. I hope you'll let someone help you. I'd be willing.

This theme amazingly brings us to Christian abolitionist #12.......

William Wilberforce....Evangelical and all around nice guy you loved his fellow man......

More to come.

By Colbert on November 1, 2006 10:05 PM

Cee,
"Mmm, three of those four powers Bush is using were specifically granted by the overbearing federal legislature...campaign finance reform, Patriot Act & Detainee bill, and the last one by the overbearing federal legislature, AND the overbearing federal judiciary VIA THE PASSAGE & MISAPPLICATION OF THE 14th AMENDMENT!"

Mmm, those of us in the reality-based community know about a thing called a veto. I know what you're thinking. "That sounds like some Italian guy." True but it's also a tool the President has to reject Congressional legislation. If a passed bill is vetoed, the Congress can only enact it as law if they override with a two-thirds majority.
The President didn't veto any of the legislation mentioned. The "overbearing federal legislature" is controlled by Republicans which means Republicans can stop any legislation they don't want passed. The "overbearing federal judiciary" has majorities of Republican nominees on the Supreme Court and ten of eleven circuit courts. But let's look at Bush's involvement in these issues. The Attorney General drafted and Bush proposed the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and other legislation dealing with terrorism. The Administration claimed anyone who opposed the Patriot Act was on the side of the terrorists.
You supported some of those acts on this borad I believe. I know most of the conservatives have. That deals with two of the four. The first Constitutional issue involved speech. Bush sets up free speech zones far away from his appearances. The McCain-Feingold bill had bipartisan support and was signed by Bush. However, if Bush had vetoed it, I doubt the Republican Congress would have overridden his veto. The fourth point includes the federal intervention in the Shiavo case, the attempted Constitutional gay marriage ban, NSA wiretapping, and other issues strongly supported by Bush and conservatives, including you. Or did you think trying to ban gay marriage via a Constitutional amendment and intervening the Schiavo case was wrong?

By Colbert on November 2, 2006 12:39 AM

Cee,
Here are some promised quotes of pro-slavery people. Southern Christian preachers used the Bible to justify slavery.

"It (slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation." - Jefferson Davis

“The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just a Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” - Spanish jurist Encisco based on a 1493 Papal Bull

"The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God." - Saint John Chrysostom

"Slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance." - Saint Augustine

"Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction." - Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, "A Scriptural View of Slavery"

I'll post more later but the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery while it does explicitly condemn many things. You have yet to adress that.

By cee on November 2, 2006 7:08 AM

Oh Almighty OZ:

Historical context is a wonderul thing......

The overbearing federal executive, overbearing federal judiciary, and overbearing federal legislature have been with us since the end of the 19th century. My ENTIRE premise, (if you go back and actually read the posts prior to the one you mentioned), was based on your contention that the 14th Amendment was now in play, making our country very different than 18th century America.

Every President since The Civil War has used the powers granted him....I am not surprised, nor would the founders be surprised, because that is the nature of man....That is why federalism was the way to go...Your viseral hatred of GW's use of his position proves my point, OZ. You politically disagree with GWB(r) and argue against his use of GRANTED executive powers. However, when an entity, lets say LBJ(d), uses GRANTED executive powers to accomplish ends that suit your political paradigm......SILENCE.

I happen to agree with the ends, the results, of many of the things accomplished by the powerful federal government we have had since the dawn of the 20th century.....I DISAGREE WITH THE MEANS. So, really, I think the whole thing is going down the drain....I would prefer the states and local communities AND individual citizens retake their powers back and the federal entity go back to their ENUMERATED functions....particularly national defense.

Would progress had been slower or the US brought dangerously close to splitting apart again like over slavery....perhaps, and we'll never know, will we, OZ?....But the founders worry of too much centralized power has come to pass....WAY BEFORE BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT!

This is what make me laugh at liberals, like you, OZ. You are so angry with Bush, PERSONALLY, but you should be more worried about the historical trend of our country since The Civil War that ended federalism and put huge amounts of unchecked power into the hands of fallable human men and women....OF MANY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES!

This does not only apply to the federal executive which you CURRENTLY disagree with....This power grab has been more damaging from the 100+ years of overbearing federal judiciary power which has turned the public school system into the indoctrination tools that they are currentlty.

This power grab also applies to the overbearing federal legislature that has passed hundreds of regulations that impose economic and time-consuming burdens on us all.....environmental, occupational and safety regulations that have NEVER been scientifically/objectively examined to assess their real positive effect...we just all assume we are better off. Well, I guess we'll never really know. The huge amounts of taxes and entitlement programs that cost more to run then actually help the citizens are another kettle-of-fish.

And your argument based on FEDERAL checks and balances is also a nonstarter because of the very reality you noted. Federal executive vetos, federal legislaive oversite and budget control and federal judiciary oversite only works as you would want it, if there are differing political entities in those branches. When there is unanimity between the branches, the last 6 years results....you don't like the results/I like the results. HOWEVER, when there is conflict between the branches...."gridlock," or even worse....the last term of President Clinton. I guess after Tuesday we will return to this type of federal entity. Doesn't really matter, though.

OZ, you are being hypocritical if you are angry with the current unanimous federal leadership (r) but supported the ends of previous unanimous federal leadership (d). The ends do not justify the means. The loss of local/state governmental authority to the centralized, obese federal leviathan is a fact of life now, and whoever has the reins will use it for their own fallable goals.

Vito, my italian friend, only comes around when he is invited. I see no need to invite him, so he is not here. Why do you expect Vito to come, univited, OZ?

Oh, wait, you were talking about VETO....yes, same idea....why would Bush veto legislation that grants him power he desires? The man shouldn't be a leader if he does that! Give me an example of any federal executive that vetoed legislation that granted him power he did not want. Duh.

So now, all of us fallable American citizens function under a very powerful centralized state....the founders are crying in heaven (you know about that fabled place run by the sky-fairy, OZ).

However, if you think I am going to let people with your evil worldview manipulate the society (through the fallable system we have), to subjugate me and my family, you are dumber than I thought.

Voila....Secular Humanism goal....a step closer to totalitarianism.

I bow to the Great & Powerful OZ!

More to come about your silly slavery rant....

That's the problem with your postmodernist, secular frame of reference....the ends justify the means...but remember that applies even when YOU do not support the ends.

Think about it...reread The Federalist Papers...go vote Tuesday and see if it really makes a difference in 10 years.

By cee on November 2, 2006 8:47 AM

OZ,

When I started to research my response to your last post regarding "Christians" defending slavery based on biblical passages, I came up first with this little gem.....

"A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous."

From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h490t.html

Jefferson, the inquisitive scientist, seems to come to pretty crazy conclusions using his present day naturalist scientific method. Mmmm. It does not seem any more accurate than the biblical method, does it OZ?

I will continue responding to your silly argument later. I just wanted to let you read something from your claimed Secular Humanist (although I still know Jefferson was greatly influenced by Christianity). When he employs the greatly touted humanist tool to find truth....he failed miserably. Read the rest of it, OZ...especially the stuff about bile, blood and skin color....his modern day science seems to have failed him.

By cee on November 2, 2006 3:40 PM

Christian abolitionist example #12

William Wilberforce 1787

William Wilberforce was deeply Christian, vibrantly evangelical, and passionately political in the House of Commons over the long haul in the fight against the African Slave Trade. On October 28, 1787 he wrote in his diary at the age of 28, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of [Morals]." Battle after battle in Parliament he was defeated, because "The Trade" was so much woven into the financial interests of the nation. But he never gave up and never sat down.

"On February 24, 1807 at 4:00 AM, twenty years later, the decisive vote was cast and the Slave Trade became illegal. The House rose almost to a man and turned towards Wilberforce in a burst of parliamentary cheers, while the little man with the curved spine sat, head bowed, tears streaming down his face." (John Pollock, Wilberforce, p. 211)

Abolishing the slave trade was "the grand object of my Parliamentary existence." "Before this great cause," he wrote in 1796, "all others dwindle in my eyes, and I must say that the certainty that I am right here, adds greatly to the complacency with which I exert myself in asserting it. If it please God to honor me so far, may I be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty as never before disgraced a Christian country." (Pollock, p. 143)

"I daily become more sensible that my work must be affected by constant and regular exertions rather than by sudden and violent ones." He, "had learned the secret of being strengthened, not stopped, by opposition and to have a, "radical allegiance to Jesus Christ."

He prayed – "[May God] enable me to have a single eye and a simple heart, desiring to please God, to do good to my fellow creatures and to testify my gratitude to my adorable Redeemer"

By cee on November 2, 2006 4:21 PM

The Great & Powerful OZ proclaimed: "I'll post more later but the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery while it does explicitly condemn many things. You have yet to adress that."

I'll adress it now.....

"The practice of human slavery is not condemned in the Scriptures by that name, nor mentioned in any of our common law definitions by the same name. But it is condemned in the Scriptures under other names, and by descriptions, plainly and severely. There are many modern practices, such as piracy, duelling, gambling, which are not condemned in the Scriptures by those names, but by descriptions. In this way, though all the crimes against God and his religion have been legalised by men in this world, they are all plainly described and condemned in the Scriptures, so that mankind are without any moral or just excuse for committing them.

But that the practice of human slavery is thus condemned, is plainly proven, as follows: By our slaveholding definitions, human slavery is described as property in man, and slaves are declared to be the property of their masters or owners, and cannot own, possess, or enjoy anything but what belongs to their owners. But by our common law definitions, human slavery is compounded of the crimes of kidnapping, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.

'And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.' EXODUS 21:16

This passage is a short description of the kidnapping and sale of one person by another, described as "man-stealing," the same being an entirely different transaction from the voluntary sales of servants by themselves, as described in GENESIS 47, EXODUS 21, LEVITICUS 25, or DEUTERONOMY 15.

But if there could be a reasonable doubt of the intent to describe a property or slavish title, by the acts condemned in the foregoing statute, it is entirely dispelled by the description of the same crime:

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you." Deutoronomy 24:7

Shall I go on, OZ?....I was very happy to come across this great treatise at:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html

A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument; By A Citizen of Virginia:
Bourne, George
(1780-1845)

I have to thank you OZ....the idea to research the truth with regards to slavery and the bible was inspired by your attacks. The article continues to, point/point, refute the pro-slavery forces' use of biblical passages to condone human slavery...great stuff.

Along with Sewell's stuff, this article is a slam dunk for me. Now I'll know better what to argue when other wizards start to yell at me.

How about you?

By cee on November 2, 2006 5:08 PM

Christian abolitionist example #13

John Quincy Adams 1841

A small portion of his AMISTAD argument before the Supreme Court.....

"I have said that the decisions of all the courts of the United States in that case directing that surrender, are apologetic. They admit that the traffic in slaves is contrary to the law of nature; that it is inhuman, cruel, odious, detestable; but that it is not contrary to the law of nations, and therefore must be acknowledged, defended, protected and carried into execution for other nations by the Courts of the United States, although as abhorrent to our laws as to the laws of nature. For this distinction also, our courts are indebted to Sir William Scott, whose ingenuity in that same case of the Louis, lays down the following position, cited also approvingly, by Chief Justice Marshall, in his opinion upon the case of the Antelope.

"'A court,' says the British Judge, 'in the administration of law, cannot attribute criminality to an act where the law imputes none. It must look to the legal standard of morality; and upon a question of this nature, that standard must be found in the law of nations, as fixed and evidenced by general and ancient and admitted practice, by treaties, and by the general tenor of the laws and ordinances, and the formal transactions of civilized states: and looking to these authorities, he found a difficulty in maintaining that the transaction was legally criminal.'

"In the Declaration of Independence the Laws of Nature are announced and appealed to as identical with the laws of nature's God, and as the foundation of all obligatory human laws. But here Sir William Scott proclaims a legal standard of morality, differing from, opposed to, and transcending the standard of nature and of nature's God. This legal standard of morality must, he says, in the administration of law, be held, by a Court, to supersede the laws of God, and justify, before the tribunals of man, the most atrocious of crimes in the eyes of God. With such a principle it is not surprising that Sir William Scott should have found a difficulty in maintaining that the African slave trade was legally criminal, nor that one half the Supreme Court of the United States should have adopted his conclusions. It is consolatory to the friends of human virtue and of human freedom to know, that this error of the first concoction, in the moral principle of a British judge, has been, so far as relates to the African slave trade, laid prostrate by the moral sense of his own country, which has overcome the difficulty of finding the slave trade criminal, by the legal and national abolition of slavery itself."

He ended his argument with this:

"In taking, then, my final leave of this Bar, and of this Honorable Court, I can only ejaculate a fervent petition to Heaven, that every member of it may go to his final account with as little of earthly frailty to answer for as those illustrious dead, and that you may, every one, after the close of a long and virtuous career in this world, be received at the portals of the next with the approving sentence--"Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

By Colbert on November 2, 2006 6:26 PM

Cee,
Jefferson was a child of the Enlightenment, as were Madison, Washington, Paine, Franklin and many of the Founders. I never claimed he was correct about everything but he used reason and thought instead of faith. As he said, the atheist's moral sense is as strong as a Christian's and doesn't come from God. Most of the morals in the Bible predate the Bible. Claiming Jefferson believed killing people was wrong doesn't prove he was a Christian. What is your definition of Christian by the way? I subscribe to the morals of Jesus regarding poverty and the Golden Rule. In that sense I'm a Christian. In the sense that being Christian means believing Jesus was Holy, neither I nor Jefferson are Christians.

It's obvious you haven't read much by or about Jefferson. If you had, and understood what you read, you would never be alligning yourself with him. He was hopeful we would not believe in the mystical Bible anymore. He proposed other rights which you would be at odds with. His entire philosophy about humans conflicts with your's. Jefferson believed in the goodness and kindness of humans. He didn't think we needed punishments or rewards to be good. He thought we were good. He believed in humans far more than you do. To ask "what would Jefferson want us to do?" proves you don't have an elementary understanding of him. Madison wasn't as liberal as Jefferson but they mostly agreed. I'm writing this to prevent you from further embarrassing yourself.

I'm glad you finally learned something. It's too bad your abilities are limited to copying and pasting other's arguments. The Anti-Slavery Bible is the persons opinion. Even if I take his word as correct, the wife and children are still slaves forver. If the husband won't leave his family he is awled through his ear and becomes a slave forever. Slaves can be beaten to the point of dying a day or two after, without punishment. Slavery is not condemned even though it is mentioned. Are gambling or dueling or the other subjects mentioned by name in the Bible, as slavery is? The Ten Commandments is a list of condemnations. Why isn't slavery among them? The entire argument is nullified by the fact that the Bible says slaves are "property." Your quotes only say "people" can't be sold but slaves aren't "people" according to the Bible; they're "property." Can you imagine what right-wingers would do if Hillary Clinton wrote a novel with those Biblical quotes? She'd be called an evil, racist, slavery-lover. You better find better defenses of the Bible before you start spewing that crap.

By cee on November 2, 2006 8:56 PM

OZ,

You claim, "[Jefferson's] entire philosophy about humans conflicts with your's. Jefferson believed in the goodness and kindness of humans. He didn't think we needed punishments or rewards to be good. He thought we were good. He believed in humans far more than you do. To ask 'what would Jefferson want us to do?' proves you don't have an elementary understanding of him. Madison wasn't as liberal as Jefferson but they mostly agreed. I'm writing this to prevent you from further embarrassing yourself."

That's your rebuttal? First, no support, and second, I can find more quotes from this conflicted man, TJ, that proves you wrong.....like:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Mmmm, what can I say. One quote has Jefferson assailing religion and thinking natural man has all the right answers....then he has another view of man as becoming lazy and needing anniliation. One quote has God the source of our rights and blessings, the next maybe there is no God and man can come up with it all.....Like I have posted before....Thomas Jefferson was conflicted....but he was not a Secular Humanist. I don't know what he died thinking was truth, but he was one confused dude (especially thinking African's skin was dark from the mixtures of bile and blood....ech).

Is Jefferson your hero, OZ?

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
TJ again....what was he thinkin, OZ?

Do you actually believe what you wrote?

"He didn't think we needed punishments or rewards to be good."

Oh yeah, pruning that "tree," was just a metaphor.....natural manure a metaphor. The man lived in the 18th century!

"He thought we were good. He believed in humans far more than you do. To ask "what would Jefferson want us to do?" proves you don't have an elementary understanding of him. Madison wasn't as liberal as Jefferson but they mostly agreed. I'm writing this to prevent you from further embarrassing yourself.

Ditto from me to you on that last sentence, OZ....you have totally fallen off the turnip truck!

Once again, I ask you, almighty OZ, a Secular Humanist abolitionist please! 1, ONE, uno, un.

Oh, and again I really must stress you read, UNCLE TOM'S CABIN....You still have not responded to my questions in that post. Are the questions too scary for you, OZ?

By Colbert on November 2, 2006 11:42 PM

Cee,
This is what I warned you about. Your reading comprehension is that of a 10-year old. Jefferson was saying rebellion is good. It is needed due to corrupt and tyrannous leaders. Jefferson didn't say or imply man was lazy and needed annihilation. He said if man doesn't stand up to their rulers it would be due to lethargy. The people who needed annihilation were the corrupt and tyrannous leaders. Obviously some of the good people (patriots) would be killed in a rebellion but he wasn't rooting for that. Nothing in that quote or the next one says man isn't good. If you read his writings you'd realize Jefferson thought people were good. I can find you a quote of by Bush saying we can't win the war on terror. I can find you quotes of most people contradicting themselves. That doesn't mean we can't determine their true thoughts through the preponderance of what they wrote and said. Jefferson was a deist, Free thinker, rationalist, all of which are closely connected to humanism. I never said he was a secular humanist; I said religious whackos would think so. Pat Robertson called Episcopalians the anti-Christ. What would he think of deists or people who called Christianity "superstition?"

I read Uncle Tom's Cabin years ago. I don't mind liberal Christianity. I mind the religious right which preaches hate and intolerance. Do you like the Southern Baptist Convention?

I'd like to make one more point about rebellions. You quote Jefferson as if you agree with him. Do you really want us to have rebellions? Let's take a hypothetical situation. Assume Tuesday the Republicans gain seats in both houses. It'd be a big surprise and indicate fraud. So Democrats and other concerned citizens take to the streets ala Ukraine and Mexico. Would you support that or not?

By Colbert on November 3, 2006 12:50 AM

Cee,
Here are a few of several quotes from Jefferson that would indicate he wanted the states to have the federal Bill of Rights or already had comparable bills of rights.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

"The general voice from north to south... calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these things may do evil cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

Madison wanted the Bill of Rights to apply to the states although this was assumed unneccessary due to the states' bills of rights.

It should be clear to anyone who has read any Revoltionary history that the Founders didn't want the states restricting the peoples' rights. Of course your use of the word "federalism" shows you lack any understanding of our nation's founding. You make so many erroneous assumptions which proves your complete ignorance about our history, it's hard to reason with you. I feel like I have to teach you history before I can explain my views. Read about the Federalists and Republicans and what the Federalists did with their power. Then read about some of the objectionable Federalists' acts being continued by Republicans.
Then try again with federalism being destroyed after the Civil War with the federal government using power.

What specific cases are you complaining about? I'll adress specific cases you mention but you've yet only spoken in generalities.

By cee on November 3, 2006 6:55 AM

Yes OZ, once again you change the point to suit your argument.

I count 6 times now that you've done this.

OK....I'll bite.....again.......

I did not say I agree with Jefferson's quote about rebellion. I thought I left the impression that Jefferson's abiguity throughout his life tended to make him seem more confused about the nature of man and not even close the absolutist (and erroneous) belief that man is good (humanism). I said it was another example of contradiction that was in conflict with your erroneous statement, "He didn't think we needed punishments or rewards to be good." Oh my.

What is punishment? Since you seem to be THINKING like a two year old fighting over his favorite toy truck (turnip), I'll define it for you.

"the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault."

And reward?

"something given or received in recompense for worthy behavior or in retribution for evil acts."

So, let's go back to Jeffersons natural manure statement and talk about what it REALLLY says, OZ:

The central idea is found in the central sentence, "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Jefferson clearly states that the rulers (they would be humans), NEED warning from the ruled (they would be humans, too).

warning: an intimation, threat, or sign of impending danger or evil.

So, Jefferson seems to imply the HUMAN rulers NEED a negative sign through the possibility of rebellion to preserve liberty. OZ, your projection of your ill conceived thought, "we were good," is not supported by Jefferson. If he fundamentally believed that jive, the rebellion (I am assuming armed conflict), would never be necessary.

Logically concluding Jefferson's quote, the punishment for the bad HUMAN ruler is removal from office, perhaps even death through armed conflict. Do you understand OZ? Armed rebellion would result in the death (annihilation) of the incorrect group...it could be the ruler, but logically, it could also be the ill-informed masses. All of these entities are human, one is right, the other wrong....one is good, the other evil.

With regards to my second quote from Jefferson....REWARD! Allow me to remind you, he said, "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are...."

"I NEED THE FAVOR." Why Jefferson? If the goodness in you and all humans is present, why do you need any positive help from the deity, TJ?

Jefferson does not have to say, "Man is not good," in order for the simpleton to realize that so many of his quotes actually identifies the truth that man is basically prone to, "bad."

Oh, I feel like I am instructing a kindergarden class....Rewards/Punishment.....NO NEED FOR THESE?!?! DO you have children, OZ?

Again, for the ?th time, I stated Jefferson was conflicted, a seeker, NOT a Secular Humanist as I defined it (please read the post...you never commented), and ambiguous. You seem to know for a fact that he ascribed to the humanist philosophy of the basic goodness of humankind. Well, good luck with that OZ, because my reading of Jefferson and all of the founders, showed their CONSISTENT unease and distrust of man with power and man without power....they usually DO NOT do the good. Also the founders believed in God. These two worldviews are NOT closely aligned to Secular Humanism.

This is why I am skeptical of the history taught by supposed "neutral," federal representatives in my local common school. THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL. They teach the silliness Secular Humanists believe....man is good. They teach the silliness Secular Humanists believe...the founders were Secular Humanists.

Let me give you another authority on the heart of man, Christ:

"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." MARK 7:21-23

The follower of Christ, the Chistian, trusts in His wisdom. His wisdom is divine. He says that evil comes out of man. He does NOT teach that man is good. He teaches the unsaved man is evil and only He can change him, from within. Evil is not taught or learned...it is inherant in man's heart. This idea runs thoughout the hebrew and christian scriptures.

OZ queries: "What would he think of deists or people who called Christianity "superstition?"

I say that the conflict between faith and reason can lead even very intelligent people into ignoring basic truths. The founders were men of faith in a world that was beginning to say faith was no longer necessary. The tendancy to turn away from faith is even stronger today and in some people now complete....the atheist. The use of the word superstition implies the writer wants to turn away from the use of faith, exclusively. Fortunately for these conflicted people, Christ will be faithful to them because He loves them. This is what the prodigal son parable is all about.

Don't overlook the inclusion of, "pride," as a sin identified by Christ that comes from man's heart, OZ. Jefferson and other founders were guilty of this sin and many of their quotes come from that sin. The humble servant of God is the opposite of that evil. Some quotes suggest those men too.

I would say your heart is putting out a lot of foolishness and pride, OZ. I hope you reread UNCLE TOM'S CABIN with an open mind. Because in the end, it really is about salvation from slavery through Christ alone. That idea is not liberal or conservative, right or left. It is truth.

By cee on November 3, 2006 8:51 AM

OZ,

Also, your 12:50 AM rebuttal to my 11/2/06 7:08 AM totally overlooks my point....but that's okay because I know you can't fathom you have been wrong about our federal government's activites and increasing power over our lives.

My last post regarding increasing centralized power, what I would call anti-federalist, was very clear. Liberals like you only like the strong central government when the results are in your favor, and want federalism when the central power in Washington is not of your worldview.

For decades liberals scoffed at federalist arguments that the people of Wisconsin or Wyoming understood their own needs better than a distant Congress. They brought more and more power to Washington, overriding state legislatures and imposing mandates on every nook and cranny of governance.

Now those chickens have come home to roost. Republicans run Washington, and they're using the federal power (centralism) that liberals built in ways that liberals never envisioned.

Some liberals are rediscovering the virtues of federalism. They dimly recall that Justice Louis Brandeis called the states "laboratories of democracy" and are seeking to pursue their own policies at the state level when they fail in Washington. The prospect of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has made some liberals appreciate the virtues of having 50 states, each free to make its own marriage law. Some have even come to appreciate the value of diversity: Virginia and Vermont may have different marriage laws, and that's OK. Maybe it would even be OK for Los Angeles and Louisiana to have different environmental regulations.

It is my contention that liberals can't give up their addiction to centralism. The conservatives now see it as their time to use the power of the government in Washington to fix the damage done over the last 100+ years. That tactic is the death of Fedealism, OZ, and you can't accept the good for goose/good for gander reality.

I'll talk about specific cases as I have time to prepare, but you are naive to believe the founders wanted a huge central government. Whether democrats or republicans, the abandonment of Federalism in their use of Centralism was always the easy way to get their goals accomplished, but left us with a shadow of what the founders intended.

By cee on November 3, 2006 4:30 PM

Christian abolitionist example #14

John Wesley 1774

Referring to slave-traders....

"Are you a man? Then you should have an human heart. But have you indeed? What is your heart made of? Is there no such principle as Compassion there? Do you never feel another's pain? Have you no Sympathy? No sense of human woe? No pity for the miserable? When you saw the flowing eyes, the heaving breasts, or the bleeding sides and tortured limbs of your fellow-creatures, was you a stone, or a brute? Did you look upon them with the eyes of a tiger? When you squeezed the agonizing creatures down in the ship, or when you threw their poor mangled remains into the sea, had you no relenting? Did not one tear drop from your eye, one sigh escape from your breast? Do you feel no relenting now? If you do not, you must go on, till the measure of your iniquities is full. Then will the Great GOD deal with You, as you have dealt with them, and require all their blood at your hands."

By cee on November 3, 2006 4:40 PM

Christian abolitionist example #15

Joseph Sturge 1841

From A Visit to the United States in 1841:

"From Maysville to Lexington (sixty-five miles) is the best road I ever travelled, not excepting the English roads. It is made and repaired with whitish limestone, from beginning to end. They told me the repairs were principally made by Irishmen, as slaves were not to be trusted to do the work. At starting, I observed that the mail bags were nearly empty; and the driver being questioned, informed me, that I could carry the whole mail in my coat pockets. When he told me he was a Pennsylvanian, I asked whether he could not earn as much in a free, as in a slave State. He said that eighteen dollars a month was the most he ever received for driving a team in a free State, and that now he received thirty dollars a month. This opened the way for a little anti-slavery talk. 'Last Sunday night,' said he, 'I saw a big black man making the best of his way for Canada; I might have stopped him, and had the reward of two hundred dollars, which was offered.'

"I asked him whether it was best to have God's blessing, with the fruits of his honest industry, or his curse, with two hundred dollars blood money. He answered, with moistened eyes, 'I wish all the slaves were free,' to which I responded, 'Amen.'

"Some incidents connected with the escape of this negro, go to prove that slaves can 'take care of themselves,' by a little ingenuity, when occasion requires. Thinking it would be more expeditious, as well as more agreeable, to ride from slavery than to run from it, he took a horse; whether his master's or not, I did not ascertain. The turnpike gates were a great hindrance, and greatly increased the risk of apprehension. To avoid this, just before reaching a turnpike gate, he let down a fence, carefully put it up again, to avoid pursuit, passed round the back of the keeper's house, and came out through the fence beyond. As he was remounting his horse on one of these occasions, the driver came up with him. Supposing him to be one of the keeper's family, he wished him good night, but instantly discovered by his voice that he was a colored man, putting his horse to full speed. When he returned to Paynestown, he heard people talking about a runaway, and told Dr. Whitehead he believed he had seen the man the night before: 'I hope that he'll get safe into Canada,' was the reply.

"'How can you say that, and be a slave-holder?' asked the coachman.

"'I wish there were no slaves,' replied he; 'and as soon as others will liberate theirs, mine shall go free.'

By cee on November 3, 2006 5:25 PM

Yo, OZ....

Any luck on The Secular Humanist abolitionist search? All I would like to discuss is 1.

Remember, Secular Humanists think man is good, and does not need punishment or reward to do what is right. "Concentrate on the watch...concentrate....concentrate....you are feeling sleepy....man is good, man is good, man is good."

Whew, let me wake up here....anyway OZ, the history our fine public school children are receiving seems somewhat light on the facts about abolition. I was hoping you could explain why that is....

Oh, the case you wanted to discuss with regards to the abuse of the 14th Amendment.....
oh boy...

Brown v. Board of Education

From this ruling equality before the law shifted into forced equality of outcome in the space of a few short years.

State resistance, massive or otherwise, was useless. In North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann, the Court struck down a state statute providing that no student would be compelled to attend any school for the purpose of improving racial balance in the schools. In Washington v. Seattle School District, the Court did the same with a statewide voter initiative preventing mandatory busing for purposes of integration. In U.S. v. Yonkers, a federal judge held the Yonkers city government in contempt, ordering it to integrate its schools by building scattersite public housing in predominantly white areas. This line of cases reached its coercive nadir in Missouri v. Jenkins, when the Supreme Court held that, to further integration, a federal judge could order a local government to increase property taxes, even though the increase was barred by the state constitution.

Would our founders appreciate this expansion of central power....taxes manipulated by judges?

What do say about it, OZ?

Furthermore, faced with a desegregation order in the early '60s, Prince Edward County, Virginia, refused to assess school taxes and instead shut down its public education system. In 1964's Griffin v. County School Board, the Court ordered Prince Edward County to levy the taxes and reopen its schools. In 1996, when the Court ended male-only admissions at the Virginia Military Institute, one of the obstacles to VMI's privatization was a possible Griffin-based challenge from the Justice Department.

Because of Brown, federal courts enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment have seized vast coercive powers. These courts are remote to the average citizen they affect.

More cases to come, OZ.

By cee on November 3, 2006 8:05 PM

Next case.....

Tennessee V. Lane

I agree with the chief justice's opinion about the misapplication of The 14th Amendment in revoking state immunity v/v The ADA act.

Even if the anecdotal evidence and conclusory statements relied on by the majority could be properly considered, the mere existence of an architecturally “inaccessible” courthouse–i.e., one a disabled person cannot utilize without assistance–does not state a constitutional violation. A violation of due process occurs only when a person is actually denied the constitutional right to access a given judicial proceeding. We have never held that a person has a constitutional right to make his way into a courtroom without any external assistance. Indeed, the fact that the State may need to assist an individual to attend a hearing has no bearing on whether the individual successfully exercises his due process right to be present at the proceeding. Nor does an “inaccessible” courthouse violate the Equal Protection Clause, unless it is irrational for the State not to alter the courthouse to make it “accessible.” But financial considerations almost always furnish a rational basis for a State to decline to make those alterations....Thus, evidence regarding inaccessible courthouses, because it is not evidence of constitutional violations, provides no basis to abrogate States’ sovereign immunity.

###
Meddlesome government regulation.....what would the founders have thought?

By Colbert on November 4, 2006 10:54 PM

Cee,
I see you didn't look up federalism, Federalists or anything else. And you made a fool of yourself again. Federalism was connected with the Federalists as in Washington's and Adams' Administrations. Let's check the meddlesome government regulation from that era. Adams signed the Alien and Seditions Acts which expired prior to Jefferson's taking office. Hamilton's entire economic program would pretty much qualify. There was the United States Bank. There was the federal government assuming the states' debt. There was a new tariff and high excise tax on distilled liquors. Under Madison came the Second Bank of the United States. Also under Madison came a protective tariff to provide funds for internal improvements. You might want to check out the arguments during the 1790's involving the necessary and proper clause and the doctrine of implied powers. It's important to note Hamilton won most of the major arguments. But even Jefferson admittedly defied the Constitution in respect to the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson also claimed the power to govern the territory.
John Marshall, long dead by the Civil War, was largely responsible for the powerful Supreme Court. Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In Fletcher v. Peck (1810) the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional for the first time. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) Marshall gave the federal judiciary appellate jurisdiction in civil cases. In McCullough v. Maryland (1819) Marshall found federal institutions were not taxable by states. The decision also provided a Constitutional basis for the Second Bank of the United States. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward Marshall found a state has no right to repeal or amend a corporate charter. It was the second time Marshall invalidated a state law. In Cohens v. Virginia Marshall (1821) gave the federal judiciary appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Marshall found only Congress had the authority to regulate interstate navigation. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Marshall found Native Americans were entitled to federal protection against state laws.
Prior to the Civil War, the slave power saw to the passage and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and Missouri Compromise (1820) are also examples of an overbearing federal government. There are many more examples but you can see the federal government exercised questionable authority before the late 1800's. To blame the 14th Amendment for all our ills only shows ignorance and racism.

By Colbert on November 5, 2006 12:30 AM

Cee,
As I explained, finding a seemingly contradictory statement doesn't mean Jefferson had no principles or firm ideas. You use one misinterpreted sentence out of one quote by Jefferson to claim "so many of his quotes actually identifies the truth that man is basically prone to, 'bad.'" Man being inherently good doesn't mean no man can do anything wrong. Only an idiot would think that.
I noticed you said Jefferson doesn't meet your definition of humanism. Now you decide which definition you want to use and decide who meets your personal definition?

"My confidence in our present high functionaries, as well as in my countrymen generally, leaves me without much fear for the future." --Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, 1809

"The daily advance of science will enable [the existing generation] to administer the commonwealth with increased wisdom." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823

"Those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811

"Our experience so far has satisfactorily manifested the competence of a republican government to maintain and promote the best interests of its citizens; and every future year, I doubt not, will contribute to settle a question on which reason and a knowledge of the character and circumstances of our fellow citizens could never admit a doubt, and much less condemn them as fit subjects to be consigned to the dominion of wealth and force." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Connecticut Republicans, 1808

"It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back." --Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Campbell, 1797

"We have no interests nor passions different from those of our fellow citizens. We have the same object: the success of representative government. Nor are we acting for ourselves alone, but for the whole human race. The event of our experiment is to show whether man can be trusted with self-government. The eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on us with anxiety as their only hope, and on such a theatre, for such a cause, we must suppress all smaller passions and local considerations." --Thomas Jefferson to Gov. Hall, 1802

"Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and... he [can] be restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

"Man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825

"At the formation of our government, many had formed their political opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

"No man has greater confidence than I have in the spirit of the people, to a rational extent. Whatever they can, they will."--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814

"[Our] object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816

"I have such reliance on the good sense of the body of the people and the honesty of their leaders that I am not afraid of their letting things go wrong to any length in any cause." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1788

"Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." Thomas Jefferson

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." Thomas Paine

"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." Thomas Jefferson

"We might as well require a man to wear the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson

These are just a few of the examples of Jefferson's humanistic thoughts of the goodness of people. Anyone who claims Jefferson didn't trust the people and thought they were bad is clueless. You would be laughed at by anyone with any knowledge of history.

You seem to assume Jefferson followed the scriptures. Perhaps his use of a razor to cut up the Bible didn't convince you of his anti-religious feelings. Did you read his many anti-religious quotes? Did you read Paine's and Madison's and other's anti-relgious quotes? They weren't exactly enamored with the Bible or Christianity.

By cee on November 5, 2006 10:31 AM

OZ,

You ignore 8 days of posts.

I defined the pillars of Secular Humanist thusly:

1 Systems of morality and ethics can be developed through mutual agreement much like we develop laws and social customs.

2 They can be based upon common needs that humans have for survival, security, personal growth and love.

3 Humans are social animals who can make the greatest achievements through mutual cooperation.

If you had a problem with these definitions of your personal belief system, you did not mention it....5 days ago!

Based on these naive views, I set forth to show that they are false. Thomas Jefferson, although some of his writings about, "man," seem to support these ideals, many of his quotes are more realistic, and I would say more mature.

I will start dissecting your lies with look at TJ's "bible." This WAS in my 10/26 post.

1 TJ's biblical razor forgot to remove the following:

Christ's instruction on "The Lord’s Prayer"

Matthew 6:9-13

"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Why would a humanist feel the need to have their sins forgiven or need to recognize other's sin....sin is condemnation...anathema to the humanist. And if man will know the right thing to do based on the "code," there is no such thing as temptation....especially from an "evil one."

2 TJ's biblical razor forgot to remove the following:

The Eight Beatitudes

Matthew 5:1-12

"Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
'Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
'Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Why would a humanist believe rewards, (as God giving blessings), should be listed in their bible? I thought man's goodness was automatic with no need of reward and no need of punishment.

3 TJ's biblical razor missed:

Christ's parable of the unjust steward:

Mathhew 18:21-35

"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?'
Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?'
In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Well, that humanist Jefferson seems to slip back into punishment mode again, even recognizing eternal punishment from the diety. Why leave this one, OZ?

4 TJ's biblical razor missed:

Christ teaching about the Day of Judgment:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

It seems that the NONhumanist view of judgement with reward and punishment made it into TJ's tome. Why?

Maybe, because he believed it.

OZ, your claim to Jefferson is childish. Based on my definition of the secular humanist worldview, Jefferson was not one more than I am. You are embarrassing yourself by ignoring so much evidence simply because your indoctrination instructs you to ignore it.

We have been through all of the establishment clause back and forth and your selective quotes that you use as proof that the founders were secular humanists. I won, let's move on. Your history is propaganda filled, unobjective and shows signs of fanaticism your liberal profs would be proud of.

I will continue with the Christian abolitionists parade (you still have failed your homework assignment.....FIND ME ONE SECULAR HUMANIST THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SLAVES).

I will readdress Federalism and yet another example of your liberal indoctrination on constitutional history, state's rights, federal judiciary radicalism, and nationalistic economic policy.

I will address you racism claims that only avoids the needed objective argument about the true intent of the 14th amendment and the sea change that occurred in the late 20th century in judicial radicalism....especially that ridiculous garbage, emanating penumbra.

Lastly OZ, stop trying to insult me, I have no reason to believe you are any better then me, nor to believe I have any superiority. Also, I am not going to react to the intimidation tactics of a con man that lives in a ivory tower. I did not do it when I was 18 in Western Civ, I did not back down to the indoctrination in my public high school and I have seen smarter tactics used by nicer liberals over my adult life.

I will now fellowship with my brothers and sisters, formally worshiping God. Bye.

By Colbert on November 5, 2006 2:21 PM

Cee,
I'm so glad to hear all those Supreme Court cases, legislative and executive acts I mentioned are figments of atheists' imaginations. I didn't even bother to mention any of the overbearing acts of Jackson or Van Buren. But they were probably figments of atheists' imaginations too. In fact, now that you mention it, Marshall probably never existed at all. Thanks for clearing that history up.

I have an overriding question for you, Cee. You claim we were a Christian nation and Washington, Jefferson, Madison were all Christians. You claim they followed Christian doctrines in writing the Constitution. Yet they owned slaves and slavery was legal and widespread in this country. Your own argument admits that slavery was consistent with Christian doctrines. You better backtrack quickly. Maybe slavery is all an atheistic myth.

"The agitation of the abolition question had commenced in France during the horrors of the first revolution, under the auspices of the Red republicans. . . . It is here worthy of remark, that most of the early abolition propagandists, many of whom commenced as Christian ministers, have ended in downright infidelity [i.e., atheism]. Let us then hear no more of this charge, that the defenders of slavery have changed their ground; it is the abolitionists who have been compelled to appeal to 'a higher law,' not only than the Federal Constitution, but also, than the law of God. This is the inevitable result when men undertake to be 'wise above what is written.'"
- E.N. Elliot

“Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, their wresting the Scriptures from their plain and obvious meaning to compel them to teach abolitionism. Finally, the duty of all Christians: from such withdraw thyself.” - E.N. Elliot

“We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” "No one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.” - R.H. Rivers

"Carried away by our opposition to monarchy and an established Church, we declared war against all authority and against all form. The reason of man was exalted to an impious degree and in the face not only of experience, but of the revealed word of God, all men were declared equal, and man was pronounced capable of self-government."
- Bishop Stephen Elliot

"[Abolitionism is] one of the most frightful, disgusting monsters that ever reared its head among a Christian people.” - August Longstreet

The North Carolina Christian Advocate blamed the Civil War on "the demon spirit of abolitionism."

"Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration." - Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer

James Henry Hammond blamed abolitionism on "a transcendental religion . . . a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error. ... And to sum up all, if pleasure is correctly defined to be the absence of pain—which, so far as the great body of mankind is concerned, is undoubtedly its true definition—I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines. Into their Eden is coming Satan in the disguise of an abolitionist."

Calvin Colton wrote "Abolition as Sedition."

Now let's look at some of the Christian values as expressed by today's religious right.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." The 700 Club, January 8, 1992

"As long as the husband is following the mandate of the Lord, the wife should submit to his leadership even though she may disagree with it. God's standard is true. Yet in many marriages, the wife is more able than her husband. Regretfully a woman with great abilities sometimes marries a man who does not have much ability. This wife must resist the temptation to dominate her husband. Her husband will sometimes make decisions that the wife feels are wrong. She must either gently persuade her husband or pray that God will change her husband's mind." The 700 Club, July 27, 1995

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." Fundraising letter, 1992, Robertson

First the blacks got uppity and now the women are uppity. How dare they?

"Young white people today are not sat down by their parents and told, ‘Look, son/daughter, you need to know that black people are dangerous, promiscuous, lazy, and stupid.’ Rather, to the extent that kids today develop prejudices, it is more likely based on their own experiences and observations — which include the unpleasant but undeniable facts that a disproportionate number of blacks commit crimes, have children out of wedlock, and do poorly in school.” Roger Clegg
You conservatives long for the good old days when it was fine to openly discriminate against blacks.

“When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront. ... I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences. I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity.” Burt Prelutsky

"The black people today who curse America are cursing God because if God had not permitted the Ashanti and Dahomey tribes of ancient Africa to trap other Africans and sell them to the Muslims, who sold them to the Europeans, we would not have what we have today." - Mychal Massie
In other words, God allowed slavery.

“It's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” - Bill Bennett

“Every American kid should be required to watch videotape of the poor in New Orleans and see how they suffered, because they couldn't get out of town. And then, every teacher should tell the students, 'If you refuse to learn, if you refuse to work hard, if you become addicted, if you live a gangsta-life, you will be poor and powerless just like many of those in New Orleans.'" Bill O'Reilly

"I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. So there may be a need to look at tougher penalties, candidly, on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.” Rick Santorum talking about the Katrina victims

"In the Old Testament and the New Testament boys and girls didn't make decisions like this, they were betrothed by their parents. We've got a couple here at Regent University whose parents arranged the marriage and they're very, very happy. I honestly think if we went back to that kind of thing you'd have a whole lot less problems--It'll help. I think it would cut down the divorce rate." — The 700 Club, February 14, 2000

"I think 'one man, one vote' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights." -Pat Robertson talking about apartheid in South Africa
Those poor white people.

"The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There's never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I'll buy some of the feminism." Pat Robertson

"To see Americans become followers of, quote, Islam, is nothing short of insanity. Terry, you know, I've been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example. Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers?" Pat Robertson
So because he claims Muslims captured slaves, Islam condones slavery? But because Christians owned slaves, Christianity condemns slavery? Huh?

"I was disgusted when Bill Clinton did it but was not surprised. But when our great President Bush, a man that I believe God has given us so that we can turn this country around, when he celebrated this holiday [Kwanzaa], my heart was broken. Because black folks, not all, not all, not all, but most black people are already suffering because of too much government, corrupt black leaders, and most corrupt black preachers. Their family is destroyed. The order of God is destroyed. And for President Bush to proclaim Kwanzaa a holiday that we should recognize, it’s evil, for the lack of a better word. He’s promoting evil." Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

More to come.

By cee on November 5, 2006 8:00 PM

Colbert (OZ) can't answer me....he has to just troll for more examples of people who claimed/claim Christ as their savior and make hateful statements. The funny thing is, I could do the same thing with heros of the humanists...but that would be a full time job.

Why do I even post things....they NEVER get answered.....

All I asked was for ONE Secular Humanist who took the chance to free the slaves.....ONE!

And all I get is the garbage at 2:21 PM.

Well, I'm back from church and ready to roll.....

Let us go back Great OZ:

Posted by: cee at October 24, 2006 06:09 PM

I was trolling over at HuffPo and thought of your empty philosophy as I read the latest post by intellectual hero, Richard Dawkins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

Oh, Colbert, one more thing....What is your opinion of Senator Obama?

Your other points.....I'll deal with them later.

In response......
###

Posted by: Colbert at October 24, 2006 06:19 PM
Cee,
Jefferson called religion superstition. Most of the Founders would be considered secular humanists by you religious whackos. Go to Iran. They have your preferred form of government. People can have individual beliefs without forcing them on others. Let's say Lieberman becomes President. Should we all have to abide by Jewish dietary laws? Your paranoia about secularists is out of control. When's the last time you were arrested for going to church or reading the Bible?

I don't know much about Obama but I like what I've heard him say so far.

So it started.....If you read the Dawkins article like I asked you too, you would see the religious hatred, not yet official policy of our country, but wished and hoped for by atheists. Dawkins is your intellectual god, Colbert, so I was simply educating myself about his proposed future.

YOU turned to the past with your response about Jefferson....and I kept up with you post for post....You can't handle the truth. I am going to continue hounding you with truth until you say "no more!" Truth about history, truth about religion, truth about politics. That is all one can do with someone who lies.....just state the truth.

I want people to know the truth about the far left and the majority of the democratic party....The are not Senator Obama.....they are OZ and his friends.

SO then we progressed to the old bible created slavery debate and I posted information about lots of nice Christian people who actually did the right thing and fought for abolition. God fearing people, no atheists. OZ just can't find any humanists in the lot. We'll just continue....

Christian abolitionist example #16:

Robert Robinson 1788

"Slavery Inconsistent with the Spirit of Christianity," a contribution to the coalescing movement to end the slave trade. As founder of the Cambridge Constitutional Society and actively involved with several like-minded young men at Jesus College, Robinson's subsequent Parliamentary petition called for total abolition (Addicott xvi). The sermon was based on a passage from Luke 10:18, "The Lord hath sent me—to preach Deliverance to the Captives." Like Saurin, Robinson thinks through the slaves' harrowing experiences, marshaling biblical, classical, and historical examples; contemporary accounts; psychological and economic analysis; and his interpretation of God's activist grace to demonstrate that slavery in any form was indefensible by Christian believers.

From: http://www.erudit.org/revue/ron/2002/v/n25/006013ar.html

So OZ, I will continue tomorrow....the truth entering the archives forever.

Your humble servant, cee

By Colbert on November 5, 2006 10:08 PM

Cee,
You failed to respond to my post again. If you want to go back to the argument over slavery, I posted in the other thread two weeks ago and you never responded to my points. You said you were happy to end the discussion and ran away. Feel free to respond to it now. You've posted people who claim to be Christians who said slavery is bad. I posted people who claim to be Christians who said slavery is good. The difference is that the pro-slavery Christians had specific quotes from the Bible to back them up; the anti-slavery people didn't. Please show me in your sixteen examples one Biblical quote that says "slavery is wrong" or "slavery is evil" or "God forbids slavery" or "God condemns slavery" or anything like that. But make sure the passage contains the word slavery. God is all-knowing so he knew about American slavery when the Bible was written. Surely God would have thought to specifically condemn slavery if he thought it was wrong. So where's the specific condemnation of slavery? If you can't find that, answer this: assume God really does think slavery is acceptable. Would you go along with God and accept slavery too or would you claim God is wrong? I would say God is wrong but we already know you would accept slavery. That's the great thing about humanism. I can decide something is wrong on my own and am not susceptible to someone claiming the Bible says it's okay.

You said I was trolling for quotes. That shows how little you know about American history. We had a war in the mid-19th century involving the slavery issue. There wasn't a lack of support for slavery and most of the pro-slavery rhetoric came from the Bible. In fact, if there had been popular vote prior to the Civil War (that's the war I mentioned) about allowing slavery to continue in the South, Americans likely would have allowed it.
If you read history to learn about the atmosphere during that period you come away feeling the abolitionists had the minority position. I don't have to troll for quotes to find Biblical support for slavery. It's common.
As far as today's religious right, they reflect the thoughts of tens of millions of evangelicals. They have access to the White House and Republican Party. Most people claim they have much power over the Republican Party. They tell you sheep how to vote and you follow your orders. Your religious right leaders brag about this. I think their racist, sexist, homophobic views which you readily follow reflect on Christianity. They're claiming to be the true Christians and this is what they obviously get out of the Bible.

I'm still waiting on your proof that those Supreme Court decisions and laws I mentioned never existed.

By cee on November 6, 2006 9:13 AM

OZ:

If you go all the way back to the original slavery debate on that other thread, I challenged you to find me evidence that God called slavery right (rightous)....You failed that challenge, but instead of accetping it, you changed the question. Regulation of indentured servents, people who willingly "sold" themselves into servitude because of debt, criminal punishment in the form of slavery and subjugation of populations after the conquering in war may upset your 21st century ideals, but they were and ARE still a reality of this fallen world that with will of man manipulates.

I am not avoiding anything, OZ. I went to bed last night after a wonderful day at my church and can only post in between patients. I have much to say against your lies and manipulated history as well as your silly arguments regarding the "Christian Right." Your leftist ideology is so much more dangerous than even Mr. Robertson simply because you believe in total indoctrination and removal of facts, similar to 20th century communist ideology. Dawkins stops short of proposed pograms, but the similarity remains.

More to come.....

By cee on November 6, 2006 10:17 AM

The civil war was primarily over slavery, however, many, including Lincoln, would have been more than happy to compromise and continue the awful institution where it was already established. The true ABOLITIONISTS, who so far have been devout Christians...(any secular humanists yet OZ? (crickets chirping)), KNEW slavery was wrong and based their knowledge on SCRIPTURE....Please reread Sewell's tract...it expalins away all of your proslavery tripe and is biblically accurate.

You have yet to provide ONE example of someone who wrote anything resembling Secular Humanistic Dogma like, "I can decide something is wrong on my own and am not susceptible to someone claiming the Bible says it's okay." Mmmm, has anyone used that silly method to change ANYTHING in this world, OZ. The answer is NO...simply because when it is used....it results in evil. Human beings want comfort, happiness and wealth....for themselves. Slavery supported all of those things for white people and the white secular humanists would have been "right," to come to that conclusion solely based on rational thought. That is why you can't find one secular humanist abolitionist, OZ. Please address this.

By cee on November 6, 2006 11:24 AM

BTW, a quick retort to your silly sheep claim.

My only shepherd is Christ.....

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Those people you mentioned, they are also sheep. I am a sheep. (I)They wander away from the good shepherd...they lie, cheat, steal, commit sexual immorality, and are wrong about doctrine. You also, OZ, in reality are a sheep. Dr. Dawkins is also a sheep. You decide what is right and wrong on rational thought and how it "feels." But remember, like anyone, you do it all by yourself.

A sheep can choose to go away from the flock and make it on their own. I am sure there is some success for a time. But I know, and have seen in my professional role, the results of wandering. Mistakes, sin, bad results.

Christ is the good shepherd and I try my best to follow him. His word instructs on morality, including but not limited to...

how to treat my fellow man (slavery is wrong) (Matthew 7)

sexualy activity is ordained by God within the mature bonds of marriage between a man and a woman (Matthew 19)

So call it racism, homophobia or whatever your dogma comes up with. It is truth from God and will be around when the current secular wisdom falls away.

Going back to Jefferson...you never argued against him including passages that seem the antithesis to Secular Humanism dogma....How about that OZ?

By cee on November 6, 2006 4:14 PM

OZ,

The history you reviewed is not imaginary, but your analysis simply reflects your indoctrination.

With the cases you discuss prior to 1865, federal intervention was still limited to powers enumerated in the Constitution (expressed powers). Marshall clarified that Article I allowed the national government (Congress) to pass such laws "necessary and proper" to carry out powers and duties enumerated by the Constitution. Remember, OZ, the federal government had enumerated powers and duties to the citizens that allowed supremacy only in that specific sphere of authority.

The states and the feds had specific areas of authority up until the post civil war era. These were consistent with the writings in The Federalist Papers. The cases and laws and executive actions you site all fall under the enumerated duties and powers put forth originally in the constitution.

The 14th amendment WITH BROAD INTERPRETATION, has strengthened federal judicial powers. The Amendment, originally drafted to protect the newly freed slaves from arbitrary and capricious state actions, was used to constrain the unfair practices of businesses. According to some scholars, the Amendment, which granted Congress the power to enforce its substantive provisions, laid the foundation for future federal expansion later in the 20th century. Equality before the law shifted into forced equality of outcome with the federal courts as the all powerful. I mentioned Brown V. Board of Education and Lane V. Tennesee...and you did not even comment, OZ....why do I have to repeat myself? I also note the change in authority over the public school system and now the feds have great control. It is not what the founders wanted.

This brings me to emanating penumbra....the only faith based concept secular humanists like you can stomach, OZ.

The wonderful right to privacy that is based on the emanation from the first 10 amendments has totally taken away any restraint of the federal judiciary. Liberals use the silliness time and again to advance social policy that SHOULD be in the control of the state legislatures and the US congress.

But again...good for the goose, good for the gander.....you know what OZ, I guess the current federal executive can use the silly concept of emanating penumbra too......

As his AG said about the NSA program:

"The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President’s constitutional authorities. No other public official – no mayor, no governor, no member of Congress—is charged by the Constitution with the primary responsibility for protecting the safety of all Americans – and the Constitution gives the President ALL AUTHOIRTY necessary to fulfill this solemn duty."

In other words, emanating penumbra of Article II gives the President the power to do as he pleases. If the courts can do as they please and make rights out of emanating penumbra, why can't the executive claim authority out of emanating penumbra?

Again, your liberal logic fails you. You support broad federal power when it suits your proclivities, but cry, "fascism" when it does not.

This has been my point for several days now. Now that the centralized powers have almost all the real power, I would not like it to fall into the hands of the secular, anti-religion left. The reality is that classic Federalism, with specific spheres of authority granted to the states, is gone....most notably in public education.

The public schools are indoctrinating pupils with the lies you have put forth in the last several days and the average person can do nothing about it because the school funds are restricted. This is wrong.

So OZ, that's my rebuttal with regards to federalism and the erosion of individual autonomy. You don't like the government meddling in your private life, I don't like the government meddling in my child's brain. At least my position is consistent.

BTW....I only support the Federal Marriage Amendment BECAUSE the 14th Amendment will be used by lawyers to override state laws that bar, "gay marriage." You play with the rules as they are, OZ.

By cee on November 6, 2006 5:08 PM

Oh OZ, I found the site you like to cut and paste from......good stuff!

The starting sentence of one page is a real eye opener.....

"The Christian god ordained slavery in the Bible. Therefore, criticism of slavery is criticism of the Christian god, which is blasphemy—even atheism."

This is why you are so confussed, OZ. It is wrong to say God ordained slavery just as much as it would be wrong to say God ordained any other manmade activity He discusses or regulates.....

war
music
divorce
clothing
commerce
child rearing
law enforcement
education
health care

Remember, slavery was in america, "the state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." The biblical quotes you mentioned either did not mean that definition OR the slavery was specifically allowed by God for the nation of Israel only. Just as He allowed the nation of Israel to become slaves in Egypt and Babylon as a result of judgement, he revealed His authority to Moses. Not ONE of your "christians" claimed God told him it was on His authoirity to enslave the african slaves.

Lastly, your sophomoric attempt to trap me does The Great OZ little justice:

"Please show me in your sixteen examples one Biblical quote that says "slavery is wrong" or "slavery is evil" or "God forbids slavery" or "God condemns slavery" or anything like that. But make sure the passage contains the word slavery. God is all-knowing so he knew about American slavery when the Bible was written. Surely God would have thought to specifically condemn slavery if he thought it was wrong. So where's the specific condemnation of slavery? If you can't find that, answer this: assume God really does think slavery is acceptable. Would you go along with God and accept slavery too or would you claim God is wrong? I would say God is wrong but we already know you would accept slavery."

Slavery, if defined as a condition of hard work and subjection, or indentured servants or as a form of punishment is NOT wrong. Slavery like that existed in American, slaves as chattel, is wrong and many of my abolitionist examples talk about this concept.

Exodus 21:16 says: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 24:7 states: "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you."

Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man's freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

I know it is a little complicated for you, OZ, but try to follow along.

I always would, "go along with God," OZ, and you will too......someday......

Isaiah 45:23

"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God."

That brings us to.......

Christian abolitionist example #17

William Livingston, (signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey) 1786

"I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke."

By Colbert on November 6, 2006 11:19 PM

Cee,
Your historical ignorance is mind-boggling. I tried to explain federalism to you but you're too stupid to understand. Federalism has historically been associated with the Federalists who wanted a strong national government. What you continue to descibe is anti-federalism. They, then the Democratic-Republicans, were the ones who wanted a weaker national government. The laws and judicial decisions I cited did not fall under the enumerated powers. Hamilton and the Federalists admitted this. They argued for loose construction based on implied powers and the necessary and proper clause. Jefferson admitted he violated the Constitution.

Regardless of your inability to understand simple grade-school concepts, I'll adress federalism. Perhaps you're having such trouble understanding these simple concepts because you're distracted. Tell Ted Haggert to take a break for a few minutes and you can get back on him, I mean to him, later. Marshall's Supreme Court (before the 14th Amendment): gave us judicial review; ruled state laws unconstitutional; ruled states could not tax federal institutions; ruled the Constitution grants Congress implied, not only enumerated, powers; ruled the federal judiciary had appellate jurisdiction over state criminal cases; ruled the federal judiciary had appellate jurisdiction over state civil cases; rulded states had no right to amend or repeal a corporate charter; ruled only Congress had the power to regulate interstate navigation; ruled Native Americans had federal protections against state laws. Hamilton, Washington, and Adams gave us: protectionist tariffs; the United States Bank; the Alien and Seditions Acts; the argument for implied powers in the Constitution (notice they argued for more than the enumerated powers you illiterate idiot) through the excessive use of the necessary and proper clause; high taxes imposed on states; assumption of state debts. Jefferson and Madison even contributed to a loose construction by advocating/allowing the Second United States Bank, the Louisiana Purchase, and the federal government running the new territory, among other things. Jackson and Van Buren fought and defeated the Second United States Bank, pulled deposits from the Bank, worked for the 10-hour workday, and generally fought for more government control of corporations to protect the exploited workers. That's right Cee: Jackson and Van Buren, prior to the 14th Amendment, fought "to constrain the unfair practices of businesses." Closer to the Civil War, the federal government implemented and enforced the Fugitive Slave Law. It also overruled states' preferences with respect to slavery. There are many more examples of the federal government increasing their powers before the Civil War. I assumed even your low intellect could understand these actions involved implied powers and outright unconstitutionality but apparently it's above your head. Even Jefferson admitted the Louisiana Purchase violated the Constitution but he bought it anyway.

I was hoping you would drop the Brown v. Board thing so I wouldn't have to point out that you're a racist. The KKK would be proud of you. So have you already started working on your daughter that blacks are evil and she is never to date one? Or does that come later? If, by some chance, you're not a racist, you should research and notice that most 14th-Amendment bashers are racists. At the least you've been brain-washed by racists. I'm sure Plessy v. Ferguson is a case you heartily approve of. Brown v. Board of Education outlawed racial segregation of public schools. I'm sure you still love "separate but equal" as much as your fellow KKK members do but it was a joke. No one was stupid enough to believe the blacks had equal educational oppurtunities or facilities. Only racists spouted "separate but equal." I'm sorry you can't afford to send your children to private school and they might have to deal with, perish the thought, black people.

The only reason you could make your idiotic statement ("This brings me to emanating penumbra... The wonderful right to privacy that is based on the emanation from the first 10 amendments") is if you don't understand what the Constitution is. From Federalist #84: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. 'We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.'" And "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." Do you understand yet? Only idiots would think the Bill of Rights is a complete listing of all our rights. If you are still too stupid to get it, here is Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

By Colbert on November 6, 2006 11:50 PM

Cee,
I quoted the religious right leaders. It's not my fault your heroes are bigots. Perhaps you should find some new leaders to follow, sheep. I explained the proof that the Bible condones slavery comes from its "regulations" of the practice.
Here are some Biblical passages for you to explain away.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

That condones slavery, adultery, bigamy, reprehensible behavior. Your claim of "voluntary servitude" is also shot down by the daughter being sold by her father. The daughter doesn't sell herself.

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

That says children of the slave are slaves not to be freed even though they didn't choose to become slaves. Again, it tears your logic apart.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

That says slaves are property.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That says slaves are property and beating them is fine.

Jesus Christ witnessed slaves being beaten but did nothing to stop it. Why didn't he try to stop it?

Again, your Bible passages never mention slavery. They say persons can't be kidnapped but slaves are considered "property" not persons. You even admit God allowed slavery but that's fine with you. That is the God you follow and worship?

You mentioned Jefferson's Bible and passages he left in. He was simply trying to create a record of Jesus', whom he thought was a human and not divine, moral philosophy. Should I post his quotes
that explain morality is not based on God for you to ignore again?

By cee on November 7, 2006 5:10 PM

OZ:

Finally, the great and powerful OZ used homoerotic imagery along with racism claims to try to intimidate. FAILURE! The smoke and fire never works, OZ. Your curtain has been pulled away and the nakedness of your philosophy is exposed to the fresh air!

All of the cases you mentioned under the Marshall court were defended using the actual text of the constitution and the enumerated powers for each portion. You can try to lay claim to the early leaders of this country and say they had the same queer thought process that Warren and Blackman used, but you are wrong. Read the actual opinions by Marshall and see that he derives his opinion from The Constitution only. Nor does he apply ammendments incorrectly just to come to a goal he likes. The evolution of the federal judiciary from Marshall's court to present day is obvious to the layman. Political, public policy power that is executed without checks by the judges started after the 14th Amendment.

The implied powers, according to the Federalist Papers and Marshall, were NOT specifically delegated in the Constitution, but are understood to be necessary or allowed. The elastic clause or necessary and proper clause allows these by stating that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" (art. I, sec. 8). I mentioned and accepted this idea and with regard to some of your examples....

Hamilton's creation of the National Bank was deemed necessary and proper to aid in Congress's power to coin money and regulate the economy. Specific reasoning dependent of the articles of The Constitution.

Regulation of Railroads, Shipping, Highways was under the Congress power to regulate interstate trade and as such it is implied that Congress also has the power to regulate interstate transportation by which interstate trade is made possible.

These are constitutionally defensable and logical results of proper interpretation of The Constitution. Even if Jackson and other federal executives remained unchallenged in their supraconstitutional behavior, this does not excuse the poor law that has been manufactured since slavery was abolished.

Congressional action was the proper and secure method to establish the framework of controlling the racism that continued post Civil War. State and federal laws should have been passed and enforced, similar to the 1964 law. The 14th Amendment was ready to be properly applied after its passage but was not.

It took a civil war to abolish that institution, and the Civil War Amendments to secure the legal rights of the freed slaves. Unfortunately, no sooner had those amendments been ratified than the principal vehicle for insuring substantive rights against state action, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was eviscerated by a deeply divided Court in the Slaughter-House cases, stating the clause referred to our "natural liberties." The clause has never been successfully revived. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which Congress reenacted in 1870, just after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, made it clear that the clause was meant to protect the very rights Jim Crow went on to deny.

The memo written by William Rehnquist when he was a clerk, previous to the Brown decision, reflects my views of how the courts should behave, and how the founders and Marshall would have wanted it...

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed. [In] one hundred and fifty years of attempts on the part of this court to protect minority rights of any kind -- whether those of business, slaveholders, or Jehovah's Witnesses --have all met the same fate. One by one the cases establishing such rights have been sloughed off, and crept silently to rest. If the present court is unable to profit by this example, it must be prepared to see its work fade in time, too, as embodying only the sentiments of a transient majority of nine men. To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are."

Seems logical to me simply because even the Supreme Court votes and the majority wins. Liberals seem to forget this and their reliance on the judiciary and NOT the political and democratic process of legislature is what I think is wrong with the decisions I mentioned.

I am not racist, OZ. I posted earlier that I agree with the result of Brown, but not the means to the end. The federal government should be properly restricted under the Constitution, especially judges who act alone or in small groups of 9. The people hold the rights and express them through their local, state and federal LEGISLATURES. I cannot appeal directly to actions taken by these nine people, neither can you. I can do something about the executive and the legislature, however.

And that brings me back to penumbra. I will quote Justice Black...again,

"One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used.
For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional "right of privacy" as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional."

And with regard to the use of the 14th Amendment....

"The due process argument which my Brothers HARLAN and WHITE adopt here is based, as their opinions indicate, on the premise that this Court is vested with power to invalidate all state laws that it considers to be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or oppressive, or on this Court's belief that a particular state law under scrutiny has no "rational or justifying" purpose, or is offensive to a "sense of fairness and Justice." *fn3 If these formulas based on "natural Justice," or others which mean the same thing, *fn4 are to prevail, they require Judges to determine what is or is not constitutional on the basis of their own appraisal of what laws are unwise or unnecessary. The power to make such decisions is of course that of a legislative body."

BINGO....The power rests in the legislative body.

"Surely it has to be admitted that no provision of the Constitution specifically gives such blanket power to courts to exercise such a supervisory veto over the wisdom and value of legislative policies and to hold unconstitutional those laws which they believe unwise or dangerous. I readily admit that no legislative body, state or national, should pass laws that can justly be given any of the invidious labels invoked as constitutional excuses to strike down state laws. But perhaps it is not too much to say that no legislative body ever does pass laws without believing that they will accomplish a sane, rational, wise and justifiable purpose. While I completely subscribe to the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, and subsequent cases, that our Court has constitutional power to strike down statutes, state or federal, that violate commands of the Federal Constitution, I do not believe that we are granted power by the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional provision or provisions to measure constitutionality by our belief that legislation is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of "civilized standards of conduct." Such an appraisal of the wisdom of legislation is an attribute of the power to make laws, not of the power to interpret them. The use by federal courts of such a formula or doctrine or what not to veto federal or state laws simply takes away from Congress and States the power to make laws based on their own judgment of fairness and wisdom and transfers that power to this Court for ultimate determination -- a power which was specifically denied to federal courts by the convention that framed the Constitution.

And lastly, I totally agree with the following:

"I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have"

You see OZ, your manipulation of the founders' writings in the establishment clause debate and now with penumbra is typical of the tactics of people who want to control others. I laugh at your interpretation of history, religion and politics becuase it is regurgitated pablum fed to your elitist secularist mommies who run narrow and shallow intellectually. I do not want your pablum, thank you very much. Swallow it back down.

I have to continue with evening hours now. So my retort to your further vindictive will have to wait. Let's just say you are beginning to sound like a broken record.....but I'll be patient.

By Queesi on November 7, 2006 6:11 PM

What's up with all this blather - thought this
site was to discuss Olberloon. Why don't you
guys set up your own site if all you want to go on and on about is religion, slavery, constitution,
etc.

By Queesi on November 7, 2006 6:12 PM

What's up with all this blather - thought this
site was to discuss Olberloon. Start your own
site to discuss all this other stuff.

By cee on November 8, 2006 7:31 AM

I know, I know Queesi...the thread would have been ended days ago if OZ (Colbert) did not bring up his Secular Humanist dogma which needed to be exposed to the light and fire of truth.

The wizard refuses to relinquish his levers and buttons producing those wonderful special effects that are intended to scare me away. His curtain has been pulled back so many times, but he is still desperately trying to hold it all together.

I have done what he commanded me to do, but even when I came back with the truth, he still tells me to do something else, using more smoke and flames to try to intimidate me. Why? I guess I'll never know. However, he did remain silent last night, perhaps waiting for me to leave.....but I won't.

Have a blessed day.

By cee on November 8, 2006 3:54 PM

The Great & Powerful OZ claimed...

"I explained the proof that the Bible condones slavery comes from its "regulations" of the practice."

The word "ebed," denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term "ebed" is sometimes translated as "servant." Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. The same term was also used in the figurative meaning "the slave (or servant) of God."

So, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2).

It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ancient near east is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible "ebed/doulos" and several other similar terms are rendered "slave" as well as "servant," "attendant," etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible. However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these "slaves" were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When Josiah, king of Judah, had been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30). It is quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of the actual meaning of the ambiguous "ebed" may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham’s household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a freeborn person.

In the hebrew bible case, Hebrew ("native") individuals who, for reasons of debt/famine, sell themselves into short-term slavery ("debt slaves"). Hebrew 'slavery' (i.e., a Hebrew 'servant' of a Hebrew 'master'; not foreigners) occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context. Like the ancient near east, the context is a constant struggle for economic stability. The Mosaic law contains numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option.

Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest. (Elsewhere in the ancient Near East exorbitant interest rates on loans were the chief cause of people being sold into slavery).

God made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor. "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. … There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." (Deut 15:7)

Interestingly, the previous passage recognizes that this 'lending' (best for self-respect of the recipient) might turn into giving (best for economic good of the recipient) quickly, but that the Hebrew should not let this obvious risk deter his heart:

"Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: 'The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,' so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to." (Deut 15:9)

Moses left the realm of law for a moment to appeal to his fellow Israelites’ hearts. The law of debt cancellation (vv. 1-6) was intended to instill a spirit of generosity within the Israelites and thus a freedom from the love of money and things.

Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of slaves are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally conform to the "western" idea of slavery). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 24, 19). Just to cite a couple:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5:13)

"When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this." (Deut 24:21)

"If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today." (Deut 15:15)

Finally, the Covenant Community and its law was meant to demonstrate how it should be done within ancient near east communities. The content of the Mosaic law was designed to show forth both the compassion of God (e.g. treatment of neighbor and the disadvantaged) and the holiness/purity of God (e.g. the sacrificial system and cleanness stipulations). One would therefore expect that intra-Hebrew dealings would reflect a much higher standard than the law codes of the surrounding nations (as indeed the historical record generally confirms).

"See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?' " (Deut 4:5)

He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. (Ps 147:19)

If you read the entire first five books of the bible, OZ, you will find a lot more about the fine civilization or ancient Israel. Historically, the other nations around her treated people very poorly.

More to come....

By cee on November 8, 2006 4:44 PM

Some more teaching for you OZ about ancient Israel.....

The slavery mentioned in the hebrew scriptures was essentially designed to serve the poor:

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:35-43)

Notice that the sole motive, in the primary text before us, for allowing slavery is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER forever (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most).

The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of selling oneself:

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25:39)

"If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25:47)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut 15:12)

Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length, continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY as a strictly voluntary act of the slave:

"But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." (Ex 21:5)

"But if your servant says to you, 'I do not want to leave you,' because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant." (Deut 15:16)

Now the passage you keep repeating, OZ:

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (21:2-4)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (21:7-11)

Let's remember OZ, the way people became married in the middle east then is not like it is today.
The parents of two families discuss and agree on a marriage/union between their respective son/daughter, in the context of a union of families, not of individuals. (The daughter, depending on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course). Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse

This "mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride. When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar, "marriage present." This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride. While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in servive.

With regard to the Exodus 21 passage, the first thing to note is that the father's action is not described as a despicable, mercenary act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter. While this legal right of parents to sell their children was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring. Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class. In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price.
This "selling" isn’t real slavery, its very, very different from "regular" slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it].
Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free.

The Hebrew term "amah" used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her.

The odd mixture of slave words and marriage words designate this individual as a concubine. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner.

The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family.

"This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing.

Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was concubinage. The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law.

Concubines are women without dowry who include among their duties providing children to the family. Childbearing was an important function in the ancient world, where survival of the family, and often survival at all, was tenuous at best.

The Hebrew term "amah" used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation.

So OZ, the bible does not, "condone slavery, adultery, bigamy, reprehensible behavior."
These regulations were all about marriage protection, dowry, and the arrangment for the concubine which was an institution long before God's covenant with Israel. I think if you read the entire history of the ancient near east, you will find these regulations were not common in other nations.

I could address your other out of context quotes about slavery abuse if you'd like, almighty OZ.

By k-fed on November 8, 2006 7:20 PM

poop

By Colbert on November 8, 2006 11:27 PM

Cee,
If the United States Bank was necessary why did we get along fine without it? Doesn't that prove it wasn't necessary? Jefferson, Madison and the Democratic-Republicans argued the Bank and other Hamiltonian schemes were unconstitutional. They claimed the necessary and proper clause was being used for purposes it wasn't intended for. You can ou better find some talking points quick. claim the necessary and proper clause to justify almost anything. Why is it rarely used anymore to justify decisions? How were the Alien and Sedition Acts allowed under the Constitution? How is the Louisiana Purchase covered in the Constitution? Everyone agreed that was unconstitutional.

I find it funny you quote Rehnquist defending Plessy, and say you agree, after crying about being called a racist. The Federalists bragged about using the federal judiciary as a bulwark against the elected branches after 1800. What do you think Madison v. Marbury was all about? Where in the Constitution did Marshall get the claim of judicial review? What about judicial review and appellate jurisdiction of state laws? You said this was fine with you so why are you against judicial review now? The Constitution certainly hasn't been amended to take judicial review away. If it existed for Marshall it exists now.

"Even if Jackson and other federal executives remained unchallenged in their supraconstitutional behavior, this does not excuse the poor law that has been manufactured since slavery was abolished."
I didn't argue two wrongs make a right. I argued that the federal government exercised questionable authority before the 14th Amendment.

The decisions you mentioned in later years did use Constitutional arguments. Griswold was decided under the 9th Amendment. If the only rights we have are specifically listed in the Constitution and to be narrowly contrued, where do we get the right to travel or emigrate? Do some research on this before you make a total ass out of yourself again. More specifically, what rights do we have under the 9th Amendment? Or is the 9th Amendment only empty language which means nothing? Madison was too stupid to understand what he was doing?

You brought up the establishment clause again. You have yet to explain away Jefferson's and Madison's
other mentions of a separation. Haven't you found those talking points yet? I didn't manipulate anything they said. I quoted them exactly (unlike you who made up quotes) and you only used talking points to make a stupid argument about one quote.
Should I post the quotes again? I'm still waiting for your responses.

"I laugh at your interpretation of history." You've consistently made things up and shown a complete lack of historical facts. It's obvious you didn't know "the Founders" disagreed over many things. You assumed they agrred completely. You still don't seem to get there were two parties. If you understood history at all you would know something about the state constitutions; establishment clauses.

By Colbert on November 8, 2006 11:55 PM

Cee,
I notice you aren't smart enough to even write the post yourself. You copy and paste directly from your right-wing sites. Unfortunately, I can read the Bible myself. The passages you mentioned that I read used the term "servant", not "slave." Using the term servant made sense in the context. The slaves I mentioned were allowed to be beaten to death. They were allowed to be kept slaves forever against their will. In the passages I cited the term slave made sense. Your claims of translation problems didn't work then and don't now. Nice try though.

I'm surprised to see a "non-racist" defending slavery and Plessy and attacking Brown v. Board. You must be the type of "non-racist" like those in the KKK. You're a non-racist the same way Ted Haggard isn't gay. Please keep defending slavery though. It's entertaining to read you racists make absurd claims.

By cee on November 9, 2006 5:44 AM

OZ:

Finally, the image of the great and powerful OZ comes back up on the altar after two days of silence. I was worried that perhaps you took off in your balloon.

Yes OZ, you are incapable of digesting the truth. Like the other posts that show your simple minded acceptance of politically correct historical evaluation, you arrive at expedient conclusions only to support your opinion. You may want to call it truth, but it is false.

Did you read my quote from Rehquist?....I'll repost it again for the slow OZ:

As I said about my position with regards to Brown, I agree with the JUSTICE or ends of the ruling. I would have wanted every African-American individual free and respected the second after THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was signed. They were not. They still are not despite these court rulings. The means to the just ends through using federal judicial review were illogical and ultimately INEFFECTIVE. Race relations today are still problematic because of the simple population numbers (whites still are the majority) and the evil heart of men. You, OZ, (and I don't know your race), commits sins of commision AND OMISSON everyday against people based on this poison called racism. I do as well despite good intentions and "wanting," to do what is good. I know your superiority complex will keep you from being honest with yourself, but I would not expect anything different from a guy who thinks himself as a wizard.

Under proper and logical interpretation of the US Constitution, Rehnquist was right. Your post may want to fit the round peg into that square hole, but it is obvious that improper constitutional law and the current confusion over the true role of the federal judiciary surround the establishment of the rights and protections of the freed slaves. The judiciary's repeated mistakes since the 14th Amendment has allowed the creeping degredation of individual and state autonomy to a point now that the federal government is the mommy....protecting us from everything and restricting our First Amendment Rights. You just can't accept this simple fact because it would destroy your worldview, OZ. I am sorry it is so bad, but it is true.

The cowardly men and women of our politcal branches, both state and federal....the executives and the legislators, failed to do what was right and required of them under US law. They failed their true role, they were (and are) absent from their post. Judges filled that vacuum. This may have achieved results satisfactory in the short term to you and your political mindset, OZ, but it has destroyed the system as begun in the Constitution. Unelected, unaccountable people now are worshiped as wise and tell the 300 million of us what to do. They were to advise, like all lawyers advise, but the buck was supposed to stop with the people, us. We were to make the decisions for ourselves through a republic.....a representative democracy. That is effectively gone.

I posted hundreds of facts that showed I realized the founders disagreed. Give me a break, they even contradicted themselves over their lifetime of quotes. However, I know they would not appreciate what people like you have done to their words and ideas. The founders were unanimous about centralized power. We now have centralized power. They loved God and tried to follow His word. You say they were Secular Humanists. Wrong.

This indoctrination was tried on me over the last 30 years, OZ and by better men and women than you. Truth always wins. I hope you rethink your perspective because your views are only going to lead you nowhere.

I will once again be the better man and ignore your racism claims and also overlook your childish comments about sexual immorality. I will continue to mention the good Christian people who put their lives on the line to abolish an evil institution. Your kind OZ, were in university talking and writing to like-minded robots but doing nothing practical for his fellow human being. Cowards. I will also continue to try to educate you about the bible and show you that you are fooling yourself with your arrogant attitude towards the scriptures. Try being humble, OZ, it does wonders.

Lots more to come.

By cee on November 9, 2006 8:34 AM

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost."

I guess I should follow this advise from our...

Christian abolitionist example # 18:

William Lloyd Garrison 1833

The Convention, assembled in the City of Philadelphia to organize a National Anti-Slavery Society, promptly seize the opportunity to promulgate the following DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS, as cherished by them in relation to the enslavement of one-sixth portion of the American people.

More than fifty-seven years have elapsed since a band of patriots convened in this place, to devise measures for the deliverance of this country from a foreign yoke. The corner-stone upon which they founded the TEMPLE OF FREEDOM was broadly this—"that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." At the sound of their trumpet-call, three millions of people rose up as from the sleep of death, and rushed to the strife of blood; deeming it more glorious to die instantly as freemen, than desirable to live one hour as slaves. —They were few in number—poor in resources; but the honest conviction that TRUTH, JUSTICE, and RIGHT were on their side, made them invincible.

We have met together for the achievement of an enterprise, without which, that of our fathers is incomplete, and which, for its magnitude, solemnity, and probable results upon the destiny of the world, as far transcends theirs, as moral truth does physical force.

In purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith, in sincerity of spirit, we would not be inferior to them.

Their principles led them to wage war against their oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to be free. Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal weapons for deliverance from bondage—relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.

Their measures were physical resistance—the marshalling in arms—the hostile array—the mortal encounter. Ours shall be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption—the destruction of error by the potency of truth—the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love—and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance.

Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom we plead. Our fathers were never slaves—never bought and sold like cattle—never shut out from the light of knowledge and religion—never subjected to the lash of brutal taskmasters.

But those, for whose emancipation we are striving, —constituting at the present time at least one-sixth part of our countrymen,—are recognised by the laws, and treated by their fellow beings, as marketable commodities—as goods and chattels—as brute beasts; —are plundered daily of the fruits of their toil without redress; —really enjoy no constitutional nor legal protection from licentious and murderous outrages upon their persons; —are ruthlessly torn asunder-the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother—the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband—at the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants; —and, for the crime of having a dark complexion, suffer the pangs of hunger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal offence.

These are the prominent circumstances in the condition of more than TWO MILLIONS of our people, the proof of which may be found in thousands of indisputable facts, and in the laws of the slaveholding States.

Hence we maintain—

That in view of the civil and religious privileges of this nation, the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by any other on the face of the earth; — and, therefore,

That it is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy burden, to break every yoke, and to let the oppressed go free.

We further maintain—

That no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother—to hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandise—to keep back his hire by fraud—or to brutalize his mind by denying him the means of intellectual, social and moral improvement.

The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it, is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body—to the products of his own labor—to the protection of law—and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely the sin is as great to enslave an AMERICAN as an AFRICAN.

Therefore we believe and affirm—

That there is no difference, in principle, between the African slave trade and American slavery;

That every American citizen, who retains a human being in involuntary bondage, is [according to Scripture] a MAN-STEALER;

That the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of law;

That if they had lived from the time of Pharaoh down to the present period, and had been entailed through successive generations, their right to be free could never have been alienated, but their claims would have constantly risen in solemnity;

That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are therefore before God utterly null and void; being an audacious usurpation of the Divine prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact, a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments and obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of all the holy commandments—and that therefore they ought to be instantly abrogated.

We further believe and affirm—

That all persons of color who possess the qualifications which are demanded of others, ought to be admitted forthwith to the enjoyment of the same privileges, and the exercise of the same prerogatives, as others; and that the paths of preferment, of wealth, and of intelligence, should be opened as widely to them as to persons of a white complexion.

We maintain that no compensation should be given to the planters emancipating their slaves—

Because it would be a surrender of the great fundamental principle that man cannot hold property in man;

Because SLAVERY IS A CRIME, AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE TO BE SOLD;

Because the holders of slaves are not the just proprietors of what they claim; —freeing the slaves is not depriving them of property, but restoring it to the right owner; —it is not wronging the master, but righting the slave—restoring him to himself;

Because immediate and general emancipation would only destroy nominal, not real property: it would not amputate a limb or break a bone of the slaves, but by infusing motives into their breasts, would make them doubly valuable to the masters as free laborers; and

Because if compensation is to be given at all, it should be given to the outraged and guiltless slaves, and not to those who have plundered and abused them.

We regard, as delusive, cruel and dangerous, any scheme of expatriation which pretends to aid, either directly or indirectly, in the emancipation of the slaves, or to be a substitute for the immediate and total abolition of slavery.

We fully and unanimously recognise the sovereignty of each State, to legislate exclusively on the subject of the slavery which is tolerated within its limits. We concede that Congress, under the present national compact, has no right to interfere with any of the slave States, in relation to this momentous subject.

But we maintain that Congress has a right, and is solemnly bound, to suppress the domestic slave trade between the several States, and to abolish slavery in those portions of our territory which the Constitution has placed under its exclusive jurisdiction.

We also maintain that there are, at the present time, the highest obligations resting upon the people of the free States, to remove slavery by moral and political action, as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States. They are now living under a pledge of their tremendous physical force to fasten the galling fetters of tyranny upon the limbs of millions in the southern States;—they are liable to be called at any moment to suppress a general insurrection of the slaves; —they authorise the slave owner to vote for three-fifths of his slaves as property, and thus enable him to perpetuate his oppression; —they support a standing army at the south for its protection; —and they seize the slave who has escaped into their territories, and send him back to be tortured by an enraged master or a brutal driver.

This relation to slavery is criminal and full of danger; IT MUST BE BROKEN UP.

These are our views and principles—these, our designs and measures. With entire confidence in the overruling justice of God, we plant ourselves upon the Declaration of our Independence, and upon the truths of Divine Revelation, as Upon the EVERLASTING ROCK.

We shall organize Anti-Slavery Societies, if possible, in every city, town and village of our land.

We shall send forth Agents to lift up the voice of remonstrance, of warning, of entreaty and rebuke.

We shall circulate, unsparingly and extensively, anti-slavery tracts and periodicals.

We shall enlist the PULPIT and the PRESS in the cause of the suffering and the dumb.

We shall aim at a purification of the churches from all participation in the guilt of slavery.

We shall encourage the labor of freemen over that of the slaves, by giving a preference to their productions; —and

We shall spare no exertions nor means to bring the whole nation to speedy repentance.

Our trust for victory is solely in GOD. We may be personally defeated, but our principles never. TRUTH, JUSTICE, REASON, HUMANITY, must and will gloriously triumph. Already a host is coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the prospect before us is full of encouragement.

Submitting this DECLARATION to the candid examination of the people of this country, and of the friends of liberty all over the world, we hereby affix our signatures to it;—pledging ourselves that, under the guidance and by the help of Almighty God, we will do all that in us lies, consistently with this Declaration of our principles, to overthrow the most execrable system of slavery that has ever been witnessed upon earth—to deliver our land from its deadliest curse—to wipe out the foulest stain which rests upon our national escutcheon—and to secure to the colored population of the United States all the rights and privileges which belong to them as men and as Americans—come what may to our persons, our interests, or our reputations—whether we live to witness the triumph of JUSTICE, LIBERTY and HUMANITY, or perish untimely as martyrs in this great, benevolent and holy cause.

Mr. Garrison bases his argument on scripture, OZ. Also, he was one of the first "feminists." Good ideas from a good Christian man. NOT A SECULAR HUMANIST. Score.

You still have not talked about ONE Secular Humanist abolitionist, OZ.....WHY?

More to come...

By Colbert on November 13, 2006 6:15 PM

Cee,
I thought I would repost some of the other "separation" quotes.

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinance of the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others."
Madison to Reverend Adams 1832

"The number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state."
Madison 1819

"Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
Madison undated essay

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." Madison

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
Jefferson

By Colbert on November 14, 2006 11:30 PM

Cee,
You're consufed about what the Founders meant when they said God. You assume they all meant Jesus Christ and the Trinity like you do. Some did but the Founders we've been discussing did not. They attacked the Bible, didn't believe Jesus was divine, didn't believe in revelation of the Bible and many other things Christians believe. You don't understand the difference between saying "God" and the many euphimisms they used. Your peabrain can't comprehend that many Founders didn't consider Jesus divine or the Bible as the word of God. Hence, any quote you find saying Jesus espoused a good philosophy, you take to mean the writer is an evangelical. That's not even close to true. I think Mother Theresa is a wonderful example to follow. According to you, that means I think she is God and I'm a Theresean.

You continue to claim we were founded on Christian principles. You've ignored (since you aren't smart enough to argue on your own) all the evidence, from the similar laws and morals prior to Christianity to the Founders correspondence to the lack of a Christian mention in the Constitution, contrary to that view. We know the Founders who you've claimed were true Christians owned slaves. We know slavery was kept legal for centuries in our "Christian" country founded on "Christian" principles. We also know the Founders were very smart men who certaainly were capable of reading and understanding the Bible. So why did they allow slavery? Your argument proves the "Christian" Founders following "Christian" principles knew the Bible condoned slavery.

OlbyWatchTweets

Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

330 Comments