WTF, This is what we believe?

[skookerasbil]

Heres what the disclaimer should say........................



Parents might wish to discuss with
their children how this classic work
is not at all respected by a segment of
k00ks in society known as progressives.
Children need to be aware that the
US Constitution was written laregly to warn
the people of the dangers of government.
As such, children should be taught that
our founding document is loathed by
America hating progressives who seek
government control of all aspects of American
society and a rejection of freedom, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

clause?


go back to school.

It's NOT in the Constitution!?!?! The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

Metaphor? Jefferson and Madison were not speaking in metaphors when they discussed a wall of separation between the state and the church.

you have a sophomoric habit of putting words into the mouths of those who challenge you -- as if you have pigeon-holed everyone. It's a kneejerk reaction that takes maturity and a desire for truth, to shed.

Read the letter to the Danbury Baptist. Madison wasn't involved in that letter and that letter is where the idea of separation originated.

What words did I put in your mouth?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I never argued here that America "was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles" as I said America was never founded on Judeo-Christian principles alone.

Freedom of religion vs freedom from religion is a right wing talking point, a rephrasing of a strawman argument, meant to confuse the issue of Separation of Church and State.

The majority in each colony, wrote the individual state Constitutions. Many believed in God. So what? They did not demand we all do so when they ratified the national Constitution...and they could have. .


here is a pretty factual listing of things. Original and Early State Constitutions

I said State's Preambles, not State Constitutions.

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

I said you mentioned Preambles. I also gave a link to state constitutions because I never said states did not mention god. I've argued that states demanded religious support and more.

what are you arguing?

thank you for the link. The opponents of the rulings regarding support of the idea of separation of state and church seem to belittle it as merely a metaphor. So what? What I say is that it was not, and is not, merely a metaphor.

That's right I said preambles and you proceded to gives links regarding State Constitutions.

Again show me IN THE CONSTITUTION where it addresses this supposed wall of separation.

I can tell you that it's not in there.

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson's draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.

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

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now any rational thinking person would know that this "wall of separation" was meant to keep the government out of the church, not vice versa.


The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church?State Law, Policy, and Discourse | The Heritage Foundation

Do you even know what a "metaphor" is?

 

[FA_Q2]

And did you even read my post where I addressed this?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The National Anthem, and American currency, came later.

Almost every State Preamble (maybe every) mentions God, but many State Preambles also mention what Church would be the state Church, and many State Preambles demanded public support (demanded, no vote here) of Churches.

The founders of the USA chose to keep that shit out of the national Constitution.

Superstitious beliefs in a higher power are written into almost every document. So what?

It doesn't matter the fact remains. God is specifically mentioned in the National Anthem and clearly marked on our currency.

Every single State preamble recognizes a Supreme Being most mentions God specifically.

Because the Constitution was meant to be a secular document. Giving each citizen the right to worship or not to worship. That's called FREEDOM of religion.

So what? Well it kind of throws your argument that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles out the window.

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

"This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles" but we're not a Christian nation?

Granted we are a free nation but with about 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, and a nation being defined as people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, I'd say this is indeed a Christian nation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And did you even read my post where I addressed this?

I read all the post that are directed at me. Ones not directed at me, not so much.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't matter the fact remains. God is specifically mentioned in the National Anthem and clearly marked on our currency.

Every single State preamble recognizes a Supreme Being most mentions God specifically.

Because the Constitution was meant to be a secular document. Giving each citizen the right to worship or not to worship. That's called FREEDOM of religion.

So what? Well it kind of throws your argument that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles out the window.

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

"This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles" but we're not a Christian nation?

Granted we are a free nation but with about 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, and a nation being defined as people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, I'd say this is indeed a Christian nation.

It doesn't matter the fact remains. God is specifically mentioned in the National Anthem and clearly marked on our currency.

Every single State preamble recognizes a Supreme Being most mentions God specifically.

Because the Constitution was meant to be a secular document. Giving each citizen the right to worship or not to worship. That's called FREEDOM of religion.

So what? Well it kind of throws your argument that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles out the window.

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

"This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles" but we're not a Christian nation?

Granted we are a free nation but with about 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, and a nation being defined as people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, I'd say this is indeed a Christian nation.

I was actually referring more to the post before it.

It does not matter because we are not a nation that suppresses ANY % based on the larger %. Even if 80% are Christian in one way or another that does not change the fact that we are a free nation and as a free nation the government is not supposed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion because then people would not be free to worship as they pleased. The law directly prohibits congress from supporting any religion. Religion is still allowed to operate politically and in that matter you are right, the government is not protected FROM religions but religions are clearly protected from the government to include the sponsoring of another religion.

As I asked before, you would be signing an entirely different tune had this been an islamic slant on history.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

"This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles" but we're not a Christian nation?

Granted we are a free nation but with about 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, and a nation being defined as people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, I'd say this is indeed a Christian nation.

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

"This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles" but we're not a Christian nation?

Granted we are a free nation but with about 80 percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, and a nation being defined as people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language, I'd say this is indeed a Christian nation.

I was actually referring more to the post before it.

It does not matter because we are not a nation that suppresses ANY % based on the larger %. Even if 80% are Christian in one way or another that does not change the fact that we are a free nation and as a free nation the government is not supposed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion because then people would not be free to worship as they pleased. The law directly prohibits congress from supporting any religion. Religion is still allowed to operate politically and in that matter you are right, the government is not protected FROM religions but religions are clearly protected from the government to include the sponsoring of another religion.

As I asked before, you would be signing an entirely different tune had this been an islamic slant on history.

The government doesn't and hasn't made any laws in respecting any one religion. The point I'm making is that the Establishment Clause or the so- called wall of separation does not mean that you have to check your religion at the governments door. It means exactly what you addressed and that is, the government cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

If you want to pray in your public school then the government should not deny you that right, but the ACLU and it's ilk claim that it violates the Establishment Clause, but it doesn't What would violate that clause is if the public schools established a specific religious prayer as part of their curriculum.

And no I wouldn't be singing a different tune in we had an islamic slant on history. But the fact of the matter is, our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and their religious beliefs aided them in shaping this country. They all agreed that our rights didn't come from the government, but that our our rights come from something higher than the government. They called that something higher, God.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And the U S Congress still opens each session with a prayer. As they have for how long?

Which still doesn't excuse this disclaimer on the Constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

The government doesn't and hasn't made any laws in respecting any one religion. The point I'm making is that the Establishment Clause or the so- called wall of separation does not mean that you have to check your religion at the governments door. It means exactly what you addressed and that is, the government cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

If you want to pray in your public school then the government should not deny you that right, but the ACLU and it's ilk claim that it violates the Establishment Clause, but it doesn't What would violate that clause is if the public schools established a specific religious prayer as part of their curriculum.

And no I wouldn't be singing a different tune in we had an islamic slant on history. But the fact of the matter is, our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and their religious beliefs aided them in shaping this country. They all agreed that our rights didn't come from the government, but that our our rights come from something higher than the government. They called that something higher, God.

The government does not stop you from praying at your public school. It does stop the school from telling you that it is prayer time. If you cannot see the difference you are blind. Prayer does not belong in school, sorry there is no reason for my son to be exposed to your religious practices by the school. If your son wants to pray, I and the school will not stop him, if my son does not you would have the school thrust it upon him. That is hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[FA_Q2]

And the U S Congress still opens each session with a prayer. As they have for how long?

Which still doesn't excuse this disclaimer on the Constitution.

no, but we have been sidetracked onto the warping of history. Though there seems to be no debate in the warning, no one here contends that it is not BS to put it on the constitution. Not much of a debate when everyone agrees

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The government doesn't and hasn't made any laws in respecting any one religion. The point I'm making is that the Establishment Clause or the so- called wall of separation does not mean that you have to check your religion at the governments door. It means exactly what you addressed and that is, the government cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

If you want to pray in your public school then the government should not deny you that right, but the ACLU and it's ilk claim that it violates the Establishment Clause, but it doesn't What would violate that clause is if the public schools established a specific religious prayer as part of their curriculum.

And no I wouldn't be singing a different tune in we had an islamic slant on history. But the fact of the matter is, our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and their religious beliefs aided them in shaping this country. They all agreed that our rights didn't come from the government, but that our our rights come from something higher than the government. They called that something higher, God.

The government does not stop you from praying at your public school. It does stop the school from telling you that it is prayer time. If you cannot see the difference you are blind. Prayer does not belong in school, sorry there is no reason for my son to be exposed to your religious practices by the school. If your son wants to pray, I and the school will not stop him, if my son does not you would have the school thrust it upon him. That is hypocrisy at its finest.

Obviously you didn't fully read or understand my post. I clearly made the distinction in what would and would not violate the "establishment Clause"

Are you saying the ACLU hasn't tried to stop prayer in school?

No one has suggested the school should thrust prayer upon your child. You must be a member of the ACLU.

 

[ihopehefails]

The government doesn't and hasn't made any laws in respecting any one religion. The point I'm making is that the Establishment Clause or the so- called wall of separation does not mean that you have to check your religion at the governments door. It means exactly what you addressed and that is, the government cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of religion.

If you want to pray in your public school then the government should not deny you that right, but the ACLU and it's ilk claim that it violates the Establishment Clause, but it doesn't What would violate that clause is if the public schools established a specific religious prayer as part of their curriculum.

And no I wouldn't be singing a different tune in we had an islamic slant on history. But the fact of the matter is, our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and their religious beliefs aided them in shaping this country. They all agreed that our rights didn't come from the government, but that our our rights come from something higher than the government. They called that something higher, God.

The government does not stop you from praying at your public school. It does stop the school from telling you that it is prayer time. If you cannot see the difference you are blind. Prayer does not belong in school, sorry there is no reason for my son to be exposed to your religious practices by the school. If your son wants to pray, I and the school will not stop him, if my son does not you would have the school thrust it upon him. That is hypocrisy at its finest.

Their is no reason why a public school which is property belonging to the public can't have that decided on by a vote of the public since it is the public's property to begin with. School boards are a place where parents can decide what happens within the school, what gets taught, and so forth. You can have your say in what gets taught in that process and what gets done because because you have a share in that property but since you only have one share it does not nullify the 90% of other people's share in it (unless it violates the constitution, of course).

My point is is that you guys act like because you say something that it has to be done. Well your share in that public property is just as good as anyone elses.

 

[FA_Q2]

It has nothing to do with share. it does not belong there. Lonestar, you said what YOU believed was the establishment clause and I believe you are defining it around your religion. Prayer does not belong in school, a governmental institution that people must attend. As I said there is nothing stopping your children from praying. The school simply should not be the arbiter of that activity.


No, I am not a member of the ALCU. They do not know when to stop. Yes, they do not want prayer in school and if they ended it there I would be all right with that. Where we diverge is the ALCU blocks attempts of children setting up bible studies or groups within the school, an activity I believe the school should support. See the difference, one is the mandated time that my child spends at a governmental facility and the other is an optional group formed by the students. One comes at it from THE GOVERNMENT and the other comes from THE PEOPLE. That is the unidirectional format we were both talking about earlier. How you fail to see the other as a sate backed religious movement is beyond me.

 

[ConHog]

It has nothing to do with share. it does not belong there. Lonestar, you said what YOU believed was the establishment clause and I believe you are defining it around your religion. Prayer does not belong in school, a governmental institution that people must attend. As I said there is nothing stopping your children from praying. The school simply should not be the arbiter of that activity.


No, I am not a member of the ALCU. They do not know when to stop. Yes, they do not want prayer in school and if they ended it there I would be all right with that. Where we diverge is the ALCU blocks attempts of children setting up bible studies or groups within the school, an activity I believe the school should support. See the difference, one is the mandated time that my child spends at a governmental facility and the other is an optional group formed by the students. One comes at it from THE GOVERNMENT and the other comes from THE PEOPLE. That is the unidirectional format we were both talking about earlier. How you fail to see the other as a sate backed religious movement is beyond me.

Well, since you believe that way, you must agree that if the majority of PEOPLE want to have an opening prayer before a ball game then that is ok and those who are in the minority should simply remain respectfully quiet for a few minutes while they do? Of course it is never done that way is it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And the U S Congress still opens each session with a prayer. As they have for how long?

Which still doesn't excuse this disclaimer on the Constitution.

The Congressional prayers/offerings? sigh

you may be interested in this:

...the elder statesman, Benjamin Franklin, offered his famous appeal for harmony and conciliation,”an appeal for God's intervention.

His solicitation seems almost out of character with our current understanding of the man. Wasn't he a deist, believing in the clockmaker God who stepped back to watch the hands of time move toward eternity? Could God govern in the affairs of men, or nations, from such a distance? Perhaps Franklin's appeal for prayer was out of despair and desperation; perhaps he was senile as some suggest; or perhaps we have misunderstood Franklin's deism, misreading the man in the coonskin cap.

Confusion still surrounds Franklin's efforts, however, and the primary source of this confusion appears to be a letter from William Steele to his son, Jonathan.But the final word in this discussion comes from Franklin's own pen. In John Bigelow's, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, a footnote (pg. 378) referring to Franklin's speech states...


...

To the original draft of this speech there is the following note appended in the handwriting of Dr. Franklin: "The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary." [This same notation is given as a footnote on page 452 of Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention.]

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dante needs links, as if he can't google "Jefferson's Letter to Baptists"

Here you go slappy Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Like I said before:

Okay......but what about the 10 Commandments? Those are Jewish.

So? What does it matter if they are buddhist, christian, muslim or jewish? We have the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion .

Seperation of church and state doesn't mean you cant talk about religion or display religious stuff in public places it just means that you can not establish a state religion or discriminate against a group of individuals based on their religion.

and there is a valid argument that when the state sponsors or pays in any way, for Church activities, it is supporting an establishment of religion.

State Constitutions used to demand religion...the national Constitution disregarded that idiocy.

----.

States can sponsor prayer without making whatever religion(s) are praying an established religion. My state constitution establishes a state religion which violates the first ammendment.

The national constitution does not include a seperation of church and state it only includes the freedom of religion and the freedom from the government establishing a national religion like they had in England. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seperation of church and state is an idea garnered from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Lets get to the context and content of that letter which was a response to concerns by the Danbury Baptists. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, they fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

"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. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. 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."

As you can see his letter explained that they (the baptists he was responding to) need not fear the establishment of a national denomination. That while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control, there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices. True religious expression of all orthodox religious practices was protected for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government.

The government would interfere with a religious activity if it was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later the Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" without either the context or the explanation given in the letter Its application by earlier courts is also now ignored. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.

And there is your american history lesson of the day.

Dante you did not include the history nor the proper context.

It has now been provided so that you can make more roundly educated responses in this arena in the future.

I hope you do check into it yourself and don't continue to comment on the subject without the full context and history of what your discussing. let me know if you want some of those rulings and policies listed (im HOPING you can CHANGE and actually fully reasearch this topic before responding)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

pimpleass, you have posted this before. what is it you demand of me?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante needs links,...

...

And there is your american[sic] history lesson of the day.

Dante you did not include the history nor the proper context.

It has now been provided so that you can make more roundly educated responses in this arena in the future.

I hope you do check into it yourself and don't continue to comment on the subject without the full context and history of what your discussing. let me know if you want some of those rulings and policies listed (im[sic] HOPING you can CHANGE and actually fully reasearch[sic] this topic before responding)

read the post above.

I have no clue what you are ranting about -- again.


and while you're giving out lessons, try the spelting one...

 

[MaggieMae]

I got an email about this today and thought I would easily disprove it. I have friends who send me stuff and ask if it's for real. People this is for real. Here is a disclaimer copied from a book being sold on Amazon:

"2008 Wilder Publications

This book is a product of it's time and does not reflect the same values
as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with
their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and
interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before
allowing them to read this classic work."

The name of the book?

The Constitution
The Declaration of Independence and
The Articles of Confederation

Now I understand that yes we have changed the way we think about many things, but this is taught in History classes. Anyone who wants to warn my kids about the Constitution of the United States won't see any dollars from my wallet.

Oh and here is the page on Amazon:

Amazon.com: The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation (9781604592689): Books

Read it for yourself. I still can't believe it.

I really don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for.