From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: The Health of a Great Nation....
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:50:47 GMT

In article 34u@boi.hp.com, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>
>The purpose of the following text is to explore the importance of God and
>Christianity to the health of our nation, and the importance of respect for 
>God and the Bible. 

Ok.

>- Woodrow Wilson: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday,
>does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to
>do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been
>about."

Which says, well, not one thing about religion.

>
>STATEMENT #1: Many important leaders since the forefathers have respected and
>even acknowledged the power and necessity of the Bible in governing our nation.

That does not make them right.

>QUOTES: 
>
>"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based on 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...This is a religious people. This is historically      
>true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a
>single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear            
>recognition of the same truth...These, and many other matters which might
>be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass organic 
>utterances that this is a Christian nation."- Supreme Court, 1892 [1]

They are wrong. It is a nation full of Christians, which is not the same
thing. The Constitution, not the Supreme Court is the highest law in this
land. It contradicts this.

>- George Washington: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the
>invisible hand that conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the
>United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of
>an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of 
>providential agency... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious
>smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
>rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained."[2]

This is nice. He probably believed it. It is ->IRRELEVANT<-.

It just says we ought to be good Christians so God will smile on us.

>- Abraham Lincoln: "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their
>dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime
>truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those
>nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord"

This is a suprising line from the guy who said "the Bible is not my
book; Christianity is not my religion". But otherwise its the same
stuff as the above. says nothign about government.

(its also innaccurate, but that's irrelevant too)

>- Noah Webster: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the
>religion of Christ and His apostles...to this we owe our free consitutions
>of government."

He's just plain old fashioned wrong. This is what you are trying to prove.
That the author of a famous dictionary (!) agreed is unimportant.

(we are talking about him, right?)

>QUESTION: Why does the education lobby so oppose to the teaching of our    
>nation's Christian Heritage? The example is that of George Washington. There
>is a stained glass window in the Chapel of the United States Senate in
>Washington, D.C. depicting Washington kneeling in prayer before battle. It is
>titled "Washington's Gethsemane". Another example is that of the Ten
>Commandments on the wall in the Supreme court chambers. Yet, in public school
>textbooks, these are never mentioned. Why is that?

Possible the textbook authors consider are ashamed that their country
violates its own Constitution? I sure am.

Possibly cuz its irrelevant to history what decorations are present
in these buildings?

>- Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures
>ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the 
>miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice,
>oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising of neglecting the
>precepts contained in the Bible"         

The guy should get a clue, and check out the middle ages- when the
church was (pretty much) in charge.

>OBSERVATION: Does this mean that by ruling out the Bible, can we expect more
>of the same evils that we have attempted to eliminate in the past ?

"ruling out"?

What's that mean?

>"Blessed with victory and peace, may this Heav'n rescued land Praise the
>Power 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'
>And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free,
>and the home of the brave" -Star spangled Banner

Propaganda.

>STATEMENT #2: Laws must be based on a higher authority than man.

There is no higher "authority", in the sence you mean. The Bible
is just the authority if DEAD men. Biiig improvement.

>QUOTES:
>
>- John Quincy Adams: "The first and only book deserving of universal atten-
>tion is the Bible"

Irrelevant. Doesn't even say anything at all about law, or
authority.

>- Abraham Lincoln: "All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated
>through this book; but for the Book we could not know right from wrong. All
>the things desirable to man are contained in it."

Must not have read the Bible. Remember that fruit Eve+Adam munched? :)

This is similarly irrelevant to your point as the Adams quote.

>OBSERVATION: What has changed in the past 120 years or so to render Lincoln's
>statement invalid?

There were not relevant then; they are not now.

>- Woodrow Wilson: "...the Bible... is the one supreme source of revelation
>of the meaning of life, the nature and need of men. It is the only guide of
>life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation."

Very nice. So what?

>- Calvin Coolidge: "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"

I disagree. What makes him right and me wrong? I can and have at least
provided SOME evidence to support my ideas, if not sufficient to convince you.

Maybe Coolidge didn't like the way the country was. Fine.

>QUESTION: What about the separation of Church and State? Doesn't the First 
>Amendment guarantee it?

Sure it does.

>The words "wall, separation, church , or state" are not found anywhere in the
>Consitution or the Bill of Rights. Those words orginated in a document sent
>from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, thirteen
>years after congress passed the First Amendment. The letter was in response to
>a letter Jefferson had received from the group, telling about fears that the
>United States Government was about to officially sponsor a "Church of the
>United States", much similar to the "Church of England", or the Anglican
>Church. This is what the First Amendment was made to prohibit.

Not according to that same letter, which I have seen. It says that this
amendment was intended to create a wall between church and state! Nothing
less is stated.

>"I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people
>which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting the 
>establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus
>building a wall of separation between church and state."[3]
>
>Thus he reminded them that the First Amendment prohibited government from
>establishing the pre-eminence of any one denomination.

No, no, no, READ IT. It says *RELIGION*... the establishment of *RELIGION*.

Surely with Noah Webster on their side the founders could have looked
up the word "denomination"?

> But why the phrase
>"separation of Church and state?" Roger Williams, founder of this Baptist
>group had written that the "garden of the church" should be protected from
>the "wilderness of the world" by a "wall of separation". This was a one-way
>wall to keep the world out of the church, but never intended to keep the 
>church out of the world.

Right. So? This is the wall of separate between church and state. Im afraid
the constitution tends to support Jeffersons interpretation over yours here.

Its to keep them separate.

>
>Jefferson's text was not referenced for several years, until the year 1878, in
>the case "REYNOLDS vs. UNITED STATES". The plaintiffs in this case were 
>arguing that the laws against polygamy were unconstitutional according to the
>establishment clause and the doctrine of separation of Church and State.[4]

I agree with them.

>At that time, the Court looked up the letter of Jefferson's, and concluded 
>that they were obliged to legislate according to Christian Standards of 
>Behavior.

I strongly disagree with them. (surprised?)

The constitution prohibits doing so.

> The CONSCIENCE of a citizen was protected (Denomination), but 
>CONDUCT was a basis for legal ruling.

I dont see how conscience = denomination.

> Think about the ramifications of that
>ruling as it applies to "claimed" religious practices today.

Dont matter what religion yer in; Christian behaviors will be forced on
you. Right?

>     Then in 1947, the Court reversed that ruling in the case of EVERSON vs.
>BOARD of EDUCATION. In this case, though, the court used only 8 of Jefferson's
>words to make a ruling, "a WALL of separation between CHURCH and STATE". These
>words were taken out of context, and the meaning of the statement was changed.
>[5]

I've seen the context. It supports this ruling. This is probably why you
did not include it. At least, that would explain why you didn't quote
much of this document you see as so important.

>The result of this action was to overturn actions taken by the court itself
>on previous rulings.

Happens sometimes. For it not to, the court would have to consider itself
infallible.

> This was done by taking a very minor incident that 
>occurred several years after the writing of the First Amendment, and use the
>incident totally out of context. By deleting portions of the Letter, and  
>ignoring to whom it was written, the Court was able to make it say what they
>wanted it to say.

Perhaps they also payed some attention to the Bill of Rights.

>*** Conclusion ***
>I submit to you that something occurred between 1898 and 1947 to change the
>ruling of the Supreme Court,

Probably true.

> and the ruling of 1947 is invalid when placed in
>the context of all the previous rulings,

The context of previous rulings has nothing to do with it.

> as well as the statements of other
>great leaders of our past, and the context of Thomas Jefferson's letter upon
>which the ruling is supposed to be based.

Its also based on the Constitution- remember, Jeffersons letter is now law.

> It is invalid to base a court ruling 
>on only 8 words of a letter.

That's true. Letters having nothing to do with it.

200,000 works of a letter would not be enough. Its only
a question of interpretation of annother thing.

> The quotes above, along with the previous quotes,
>show that our Constitution and laws had their foundation in the Bible and      
>from Biblical principles.

No they don't. Most are totally beside the point.

> To remove this foundation has sent the country in
>an out-of-control mode, tossing to and fro with every storm that comes. 

I don't think so. It doesn't look that way to me.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism