Now that the Supremes smacked down the 10...

[hootinholler]

We can expect a rasher of the talibornagain gnashing of teeth and wailing over their perceived persecution. Bring on the Lions!

In light of that, I thought it appropriate to provide a review of Church-State history in the U.S. As it happens, I have a file full of snippets of events that seem sorta relevant.

This is stuff I've gathered from all over.

The continental dollar of the Revolutionary War, was designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1776:The mottos on this coin are "Mind Your Business" and "We Are One."

The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 - States unequivocally the US is not a
Christian Nation:
ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is confirmed by at least 2 of the Founders. Now remember this one later:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress
consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in
the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an
establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains
establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to
be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them,
and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not
involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a
provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of
the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by
Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? -- Madison In "Essay on Monopolies,"

Moving right along now... to Jefferson:

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, and 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 and 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. - Thomas Jefferson 1/1/1802

In 1837 Congress passed an Act that specified which mottos and phrases
were allowed to be printed on currency; this included the national
motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many One). The motto was not
required however.

And then the shit storm starts:

* In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."

* In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".

* In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.

* In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.

In 1865, with the conclusion of the Civil War, a new Act was passed by Congress to allow the addition of the phrase "In God We Trust" to currency. "In God We Trust" was still not the national motto at this point and was not used on all money. It was simply allowed to be used on coins, and was used mostly on small denomination coins along with the national motto, "E Pluribus Unum."

Round one: Talibornagain.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 it read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I like that, simple and to the point.

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 "In God We Trust" remained absent from paper currency.

In the 1950s Congress changed the national motto from "E Pluribus
Unum" to "In God We Trust" (which is how “In God We Trust”
became required to be printed of federal money), "So help me God" was
added to federal oaths (despite the fact that the Christian Bible
clearly states not to swear by God or any other person, place, or
thing when taking an oath. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12), and "under
God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was also about the time the Presidential Prayer Breakfast started.

* In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.

* On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

Round two: Talibornagain.

John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Clearly, some people still 'get it.'

* In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circuit court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".

* In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheists challenges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circuit court ruled "the slogan was secular".

* In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of Americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

On September 4, 2002 Michael Newdow was a guest on the popular FOX program Hannity & Colmes. On this program Mr. Newdow stated that he felt that Congressional Chaplains violated the Separation of Church and State. Sean Hannity responded by saying:

"Who hired the first chaplain for congress? ...James Madison in 1789. Did you know that?"

You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do."

Which would bring us back to the second paragraph, where Madison
Himself admits the Chaplin is a violation of Church-State separation. BWAAHAAAHAHAAAA Go bark at the moon you friggin Codger!

But, sadly it's come to this:

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses
of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God
as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office."

And with this quote from CNN on March 24, 2004:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "are so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

We can expect no help from the Courts with a problem so clearly subversive of the Constitution.

Sad, isn't it? I mean how well versed our public speakers are on the issue? I mean it's like calling a Wiccan a Satanist.

No wonder the talibornagain echo chamber is so freakin loud!

Folks, if you haven't figured it out, we're in round three and I'm tired of loosing.

-Hoot

[hootinholler]

1. Damned brick.

[hootinholler]

7. Guess it wasn't appropos

[Bouncy Ball]

2. My husband thought the SC said it WAS ok to display

the Ten Commandments on public property. Did he hear it wrong?

[hootinholler]

3. No he was right.

As long as it's not paid for with public funds. I personally don't really have a problem with that as longs as all religions are allowed. But, they did decide that you cannot have them inside courtrooms, etc. That's what I'm expecting a fuss about.

-Hoot

[WePurrsevere]

4. There's a write up the decision on AU... (link)

The link came in my email today from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It explains it fairly well I think.
From HERE]:

>>Americans United for Separation of Church and State says today's Supreme Court decisions on display of religious symbols by government reaffirms the important principle that the state may not promote religion.

"This is a mixed verdict, but on balance it's a win for separation of religion and government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "The court rejected calls by Religious Right legal groups to give government an unfettered right to display religious symbols. The justices wisely refused to jettison long-standing church-state safeguards."

Added Lynn, "Public buildings belong to everyone. America is a diverse country and our government should not send the message that some faiths are preferred over others. Public buildings should display the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments."

The high court by 5-4 struck down the display of the Ten Commandments by officials in McCreary County, Ky., noting the religious intent behind the display. But the court, also on a 5-4 vote, upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol, calling it historical and educational in nature. (The Texas monument is displayed among other monuments.)<<

[Somawas]

5. They decided two cases:

Kentucky courthouses were not ok when paid for with private funds and displayed among other "historical documents."

The Texas Capitol grounds a 6 foot stone monument paid for with private funds and placed among other historical monuments and amrkers was ok.

I haven't read the cases yet, but did see that they cited that the monument in Texas has been ther for 60 years or so.

It's hard to understand how this is suppoised to work, so expect more cases.

[hootinholler]

6. Yes, I suppose I should have been clearer.

The point I'm trying to make is that we can be expecting some loudness from the Talibornagain.

-Hoot

[Somawas]

11. They, like the Supremes, seem to be of two minds

on 6 o'clock CBS they think a tide is turning because of the Texas case and this is a wonderful thing for the Dominionists. But on losing the Kentucky case they want a couple of seats on the court so it will be 5-4 the other way.

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. Excellent post! Nominated.

Good historical outline.....

[hootinholler]

9. Thank you.

I guess it ain't sexy enough.

-Hoot

[kzootalker]

10. Thanks for posting this!!!

--This kind of post gives me hope there are sane people in this world, perhaps just not at this point in history....

I am going to bookmark this one, It is critical to our culture...Rock On

[hootinholler]

14. Party on Garth

[FreedomAngel82]

12. When people talk about stuff like that

I always say one word: Salem.

[hootinholler]

13. Thanks for the smile;) n/t

[DanCa]

15. Why dont the republicans read the ten commandments?

Maybe thats why they want to force it down everyones throat. You know the old saying dont do as I do but do as i say.

[Initech]

17. It's probably because they're having a hard time getting past #3, 4, and 5

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not steal.

Of course #5 - Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Hmmmmm... I think I'm starting to see a correlation between killing, stealing, and lying, and our leaders.

[Cell Whitman]

16. gave it reko-mendo #3 - thanks for putting this together,

Quite the deal with Hannity, hadn't seen that. :):)

Mighty fine, thanks.


This is from Frederick Clarkson's blog which is a good one for Church and State. Fairly new to blogging, he knows this stuff and has a way of writing it.

http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005_05_15_fredclarkson_archive.html

The Declaration, written in 1776 was a revolutionary manifesto, a political document used to rally people to rise up in revolt against the king of England. But the Constitution makes no mention of God or of Christianity. In fact, the only mention of religion in the Constitution is to state in article 6 that there will be no religious tests for public office. What this meant was that one's religious orientation would not be a factor in determining criteria for public officials. By logical extension, it also meant that religion would be irrelevant to one's status as a citizen. It meant that for the first time in the history of the world, we would have a nation based on religious equality.

The Constitution was written and signed by many of the same men who wrote and signed the Declaration. If they had wanted to include God and Christianity in the nation's charter, they certainly could have done so. But they didn't, and for very good reasons. And this is the problem faced by the Christian nationalists. The Constitution and everything about its history and development belies the assertions of the Christian nationalists. They did not invoke God or declare a Christian nation, it starts out simply, "We the People of the United States" -- no deities, no higher law. There would only be what "we the people" decided would be our laws and our governing principles, and how they would evolve over time. And thats why the Christian Right invokes the Declaration to anchor their argument. They have no choice -- the Constitution does not support their argument. Their argument is that weak, and they are that desperate. So far, they have pretty much gotten away with it.

The Christian Right of the 18th century opposed ratification of the Constitution when it was sent to the legislature for ratification. Part of the opposition centered on the lack of acknowledgment of God and Christianity in the Constitution. The Christian Right of the 18th century didn't like the Constitution when it was written -- and they don't like it now. So they pretend.

[hootinholler]

21. Thanks, my first on the greatest page. n/t

[deliusmax]

18. Great post.

I guess it could be titled: "The fall of the American Empire". I am convinced that the rise of religious fundamentalism will eventually ring in the demise of the United States.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. Here's MY FAVORITE GRAPHIC on this subject. I think it should be widely

publicized, because it goes right to the heart of things. I'd like to see a series of these, with especially horrible quotes from the rabid Fristian leaders side by side with quotes from REAL statesmen and patriots. (May take a few seconds to load.)

http://www.allhatnocattle.net.nyud.net:8090/519.jpg

(Found in the May 25, 2005 issue of AllHatNoCattle.net)

Recommended.

(ed:typo)

[TWiley]

20. Nominate and Kick

[beam me up scottie]

23. THAT is a great graphic.

Got it saved.
Thanks.

[hootinholler]

22. kick for the lunch crowd.

[beam me up scottie]

24. I live in KY and I

have been listening to the zealot/judge who insisted on having the 10 posted in his courthouse whine for 2 days straight.

He's actually CRYING.

He said it's a good thing that the 10 are in his heart, in his home and in his church and if the ACLU wants to try to take THOSE away from him, they can come and try.

:mad:

It's not ENOUGH for them to have them everywhere else, they need to be in public buildings as well.

The only good thing about this is that more moderates are hearing him blat and realizing that these fascists want to take over the government.

I think WKYU NPR is playing his statement every half hour for exactly that reason.


Excellent post, nominated.