New Deal: Another Name For Fascism

[Truthmatters]

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine

Oh here it is.

were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?



http://www.cato.org/people/david-boaz


David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer, described by the Los Angeles Times as "a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas," the editor of The Libertarian Reader, and coeditor of the Cato Handbook For Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, John McLaughlin's One on One, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. His latest book is The Politics of Freedom.









from the link, And this is where Beck got his crazy assed spew a few months ago, straight from the mouth of CATO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Schivelbusch finds parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the disparate regimes —even their architecture. “Neoclassical monumentalism,” he writes, is “the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority.” In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, “the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures.” Washington erected plenty of neoclassical monuments in the ’30s, though with less destruction than in the European capitals. Think of the “Man Controlling Trade” sculptures in front of the Federal Trade Commission, with a muscular man restraining an enormous horse. They would have been right at home in Il Duce’s Italy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine

Oh here it is.

were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?



David Boaz | Cato Institute: Policy Scholars


David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer, described by the Los Angeles Times as "a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas," the editor of The Libertarian Reader, and coeditor of the Cato Handbook For Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, John McLaughlin's One on One, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. His latest book is The Politics of Freedom.









from the link, And this is where Beck got his crazy assed spew a few months ago, straight from the mouth of CATO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Schivelbusch finds parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the disparate regimes —even their architecture. “Neoclassical monumentalism,” he writes, is “the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority.” In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, “the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures.” Washington erected plenty of neoclassical monuments in the ’30s, though with less destruction than in the European capitals. Think of the “Man Controlling Trade” sculptures in front of the Federal Trade Commission, with a muscular man restraining an enormous horse. They would have been right at home in Il Duce’s Italy.

"Oh here it is.

were you ever going to link to your source or jsut planned o n claiming it as your own?"



Clean off those specs...this is from post #95:
c. “Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as “his ‘blood brothers.’ ” (In fact, it seems clear in Schivel¬busch’s source—Arthur Schlesinger’s The Age of Roosevelt—that FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to each other, not to him.) But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship.” Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt - Reason Magazine


So...am I waiting for your retraction?

 

[Truthmatters]

its right wing clap trap dressed up to sound intellectual to silly cons like you.


Its meaningless.

Comparing building design to determine that Hilter was like some American president?


Look that is not serious historical comparisons.


It is propaganda and you cant even see it.


Its funny though when Beck did this on his little boards it sealed his CRAZY card with the country.

Not long after he trafficed in this nonsense he was heaved off the TV screen.


This is the type of silliness that is driving Americans away from the right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

its right wing clap trap dressed up to sound intellectual to silly cons like you.


Its meaningless.

Comparing building design to determine that Hilter was like some American president?


Look that is not serious historical comparisons.


It is propaganda and you cant even see it.


Its funny though when Beck did this on his little boards it sealed his CRAZY card with the country.

Not long after he trafficed in this nonsense he was heaved off the TV screen.


This is the type of silliness that is driving Americans away from the right.

I mean no disrespect, but that was a far more cogent post than I expected....you won't accept architecture as being dispositive for the premise...
...good, how about similarites in mentality and symbolism??

This is pretty dense...I hope you'll stick with it:

1. Schilbusch finds the use of metaphors based on the military represent another link between the three systems. For Fascism and National Socialism war was an act of creation in the construction of a national narrative. For example, WWI created the need for authoritarian governance, as it represented the death of liberal democracy. The war instilled a solidarity among its soldiers, and heroic, messianic movements incorporated this inspiration. Politics was warfare.

2. Features of these movements reflecting the war experience include the ‘general,’ or strong leader, the uniforms, the ‘storm troopers,’ a sense that life-and-death struggle rather than mannered debate, and the word ‘battle’ for every major economic enterprise. Merchants had to be replaced with warriors!

a. Even after the Mussolini and Hitler regimes controlled their governments, war mythology continued to inform the changes from liberal-parliamentary state into an autocracy closely patterned on the military.

3. But bellicose metaphors are not only found among the Fascists! In his inaugural address, 1933, Roosevelt blamed the ‘money changers’ for the economic crisis. Beyond economic and social steps against the Depression, Roosevelt had to declare war on it, ‘else how could he demand the sacrifices, “the stern performance of duty by old and young alike” that he would propose? Part of his address:

a. He would ask Congress for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe” and be read “to submit our lives and our property to such discipline,…” with “a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.”

b. Thus he speaks: “…if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline because without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possibly a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will hind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people, dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.” FDR First Inaugural

4. Follow the images of the Inaugural closely, and in it, also is the call to a better, earlier time, the many references to religion…”We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered,…” Practices of the unscrupulous money changers…” “money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.” And there is a utopia ahead: “…These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny…”

5. Lest one is unable to imagine the words in German, with cheering throngs, the following from Paul Berman’s “Terror and Liberalism,” chapter two:

Each of the movements adopted the same set of rites and symbols to express that ideal: crowds chanting en masse, the monumental architecture, the insistence on unquestioning belief in preposterous doctrines.

a. Each of the movements chose its own monochrome symbol, representing the oneness of authority, in red, brown or black.

b. Each donned the identical uniform, - a shirt of red, brown or black.

c. Each recounted a theory about history and mankind, explaining the movement’s goals and actions.

6. The mythology, curiously enough, was based on the New Testament, specifically the Book of Revelation of St. John the Devine.

a. There is a people of God, and these are under attack, both from within (the city dwellers of Babylon, who have sunk into abominations) and from without (by the forces of Satan).

b. Resistance will result in the war of Armageddon…with the extermination of the evil ones. As will the devil’s force! But not without horrifying destruction.

c. Then, there will be the reign of Christ for a thousand years.

7. An “Ur-myth,” is a myth so ancient and so all-encompassing that it has become an irreducible part of the human experience, and is the basis for the tales that seem to give a patina of relevance to the movements. It is this ur-myth that represents the origins of the movement-myths, in its modern versions.

a. Sometime after the First World War, the Babylon-Armageddon made its way into political theory. Each version had a people of God, under attack. There was the proletariat for the Bolsheviks and Stalinists; the children of the Roman wolf for Mussolini’s Fascists; the Warriors of Christ the King for Franco’s Phalange, and the Aryan race for the Nazis.

b. There were always subversive dwellers of Babylon, good at trading various commodities, polluting society with their abominations. Bourgeoisie, kulaks, Freemasons and cosmopolitans, and, always, Jews. Aided, of course, by Satanic forces, variously identified as capitalists, or Americans and their technology ( Heidegger’s Nazi interpretation) or the international Jewish conspiracy.

c. The reign of God was always just ahead. The Age of the Proletariat (Bolsheviks and Stalinists); the resurrected Roman Empire (Fascists); the reign of Christ the King (Spanish Phalange); or a blond Aryan version of the Roman Empire, called the Third Reich (Nazis).

d. Of course, for all of the movements, it would be a one-party, unchallenged state, representing the final unity of mankind.

e. And the leader…a superman, a genius of geniuses, the one predicted by history, godlike- thrilling his worshipful followers… perhaps establishing a new religion….

The same images can be found in Roosevelt's speech.

 

[Truthmatters]

like I said it is bellicous bullshit which means nothing.

Its random comparisons from the mind of some right wing propaganda site.

it is meaningless.

Hell you cant even understand any of it enough to comment in your own words.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its amazing to me that you would be silly enough to pretend the American president who fought the war against these people was the same as these people.

Heres some more comparisonsfor you.

The all had hair

They all ate food


They all drank water


They all wore shoes


They all slept in a bed


They all wanted their country to win the war.



Its sillytime stuff for people like you

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its amazing to me that you would be silly enough to pretend the American president who fought the war against these people was the same as these people.

Heres some more comparisonsfor you.

The all had hair

They all ate food


They all drank water


They all wore shoes


They all slept in a bed


They all wanted their country to win the war.



Its sillytime stuff for people like you

Yes, there certainly were a great number of similarities...I'm sure, based on my entry-level biology course, I could add a few more.
But within the parameters of politics and economics, this thread has accumulated quite a few similarities amongst the three, Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR.

Since you seem disinclined to pay much heed to same, perhaps a comparison to two other 19th century political giants might make the point.

The 1924 election saw two conservatives face each other, Calvin Coolidge, Republican, and John W. Davis, the Democrat.

"Considering today's endemic morass of federal overreach, "The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge and the 1924 Election," by Garland S. Tucker III is a liberty bell ringing in the distance. Tucker revives Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference. The parallels between Calvin Coolidge, the incumbent Republican candidate, and John Davis, the Democratic candidate, are astonishing.
Both grew up in rural America. Coolidge was born in 1872 and grew up in Notch, Vermont. Davis was born in 1873 in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Both grew up on farms. Both had strict parents stressing the importance of education. Both attended small renowned liberal arts schools: Coolidge, Amherst; Davis, W&L. Both became successful lawyers; Davis tried 140 cases before the US Supreme Court, a record at that time. Both possessed unimpeachable integrity. Both became gentlemen's gentlemen; both became lawyer's lawyers. Both were Jeffersonian conservatives: like our Founding Fathers, less was more when it came to government."

"The author has rightly corrected that prevalent popular view of this era, as one in need of historical balance. He quotes Paul Rubin: "We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade." And then, quotes Paul Johnson: "Coolidge Prosperity was huge, real, widespread and it showed that the concept of a property-owning democracy could be realized."

"Both Coolidge and Davis were exemplary public servants who articulately expounded a similar philosophy of limited government and maximum individual freedom..."

The above from various reviews of Garland Tucker's ""The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge and the 1924 Election."

So, even a devout Democrat, deathly afraid of grouping the vaunted FDR with Hitler, Mussolini, and - heaven forfend- Fascism,...even you could not seee FDR in an assemblage with Coolidge and Davis, men who believed in the Founder's principles of private property, small government, maximum individual liberty and the Constitution.

So...would you at least admit that between the two political extemes FDR belongs where the OP places him?

 

[Bfgrn]

Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

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

Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jefferson supported ObamaCare

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

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

Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "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." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: “What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.” (Henry wanted state-established churches.) Hakim, ‘A History of US,” p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.

 

[Big Fitz]

Jefferson supported ObamaCare

Who knew?

 

[Big Fitz]

Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

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

Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "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." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: “What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.” (Henry wanted state-established churches.) Hakim, ‘A History of US,” p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PoliticalChic again.

Dammit.

 

[Bfgrn]

Jeffersonian ideals of maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

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

Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "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." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: “What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.” (Henry wanted state-established churches.) Hakim, ‘A History of US,” p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.

I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
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.

When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.

I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...

 

[Toronado3800]

"b. God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” department, within this State.""

I find that terifying! Me not being protestant and all. Imagine tha slave holding self indulgent upper class of north carolina sending me to prison or enslaving me for breaking their law.

None the less, another well researched post. Go PC

 

[PoliticalChic]

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

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

Conservatives Remove Thomas Jefferson from School Textbooks

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "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." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: “What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.” (Henry wanted state-established churches.) Hakim, ‘A History of US,” p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.

I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
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.

When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.

I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...

1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?

YOUR PICTURE! True story!

So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!

2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance.
"...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."

Boring, you quoted the post, item #4, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.

In your post. Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.

So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.

As he wrote '...Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.

...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."

3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.

4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "


As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

 

[Bfgrn]

"...(Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)..."

So very good of you to provide an opportunity to correct the view that Jefferson was opposed to religion informing government....he was not.
Kind of obviates that NYTimes nonsense, doesn't it.

What he was opposed to was government endorsing a particular religion, or a particular variation of Christianity.

The Baptists of New Enland did not find a friendly viewing of their brand of Christianity, and were afraid that they would be made to conform...they wrote to Jefferson for comfort in the matter, and received same...He stated that a wall to protect their rights should be enforced, but not the opposite direction.

1. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”
Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

2. This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "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." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

3. Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Madison, about Patrick Henry: “What we have to do, I think, is devotedly pray for his death.” (Henry wanted state-established churches.) Hakim, ‘A History of US,” p. 153.

4. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment."
From Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jaffree

5. The force behind the misguided interpretation comes from the anti-Catholic former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black:
"The "high and impregnable" wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson's wall; rather, it is the wall that Black--Justice Hugo Black--built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education."
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church


Now, see, Boring....look how much you learn coming to the USMB!

But, I strongly suggest that you find someone with an unblemished record who is able to obtain a library card for you.
Oops! I nearly forgot that you were Friendless!
Never mind.

I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
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.

When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.

I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...

1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?

YOUR PICTURE! True story!

So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!

2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance.
"...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."

Boring, you quoted the post, item #4, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.

In your post. Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.

So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.

As he wrote '...Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.

...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."

3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.

4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "


As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I am glad you finally admit you choose judicial activism over our founders intent...a 'living' Constitution some call it...enlightening...Oh, I better not use that word, Cynthia Dunbar might be listening...

 

[JiggsCasey]

what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."... in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."

Priceless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am proud to be part of history. It was 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut where he wrote:
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.

When I contemplate all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected. It took YOU to decipher that Tom meant 'gate', not wall.

I suggest you fire off a letter to that goofball Dunbar. There is no need for conservatives to banish Jefferson from our children's textbooks. Copy President Obama, I'm sure he will enact your discovery immediately...

1. This is one of those amazing little coincidences one happens across in the course of one's jejune existence...
...I just happen to be reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, researching the concept of 'Vincible Ignorance'....and what do I behold?

YOUR PICTURE! True story!

So, it seems that your particular variety of ignorance has already been explored!

2. Now, today's specific example of ignorance.
"...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802, it is amazing that this subject was never debated, discussed or dissected."

Boring, you quoted the post, item #4, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist states in 1985 that your understanding of Jefferson's 'separation' statement was incorrect.

In your post. Read it again. Then, your usual ritual: slap yourself on the forehead.

So, as much as I'd like to take credit for the thesis, I was a mere babe when he wrote that.

As he wrote '...Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." we, those who have achieved mathematical competence, understand that to refer to roughly 1947, 'Emerson v. Board of Education as the inception of the misconception....not 1802.

...and certainly not "...all the scholars and wise men who called themselves American since 1802,...."

3. Further, when you learn your ABC's you might pick up a copy of Kidd's "God of Liberty"...that is, if you actually seek enlightenment.

4. In summary, and again from Rehnquist:
"The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. "


As I bid you adieu, my little toad, I leave these word for one in your situation to ponder:
Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.

I am glad you finally admit you choose judicial activism over our founders intent...a 'living' Constitution some call it...enlightening...Oh, I better not use that word, Cynthia Dunbar might be listening...

I notices that frequently, when some folks can't response adequately, they attempt to change the subject...

...case in point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

what an epic fail of a thread.... You've really gotta love how cons, who masturbate to the corporate model, attempt to do a 180 on reality and pretend that leftists are the "fascists."... in fact, they'll simultaneously label lefty leaders "communist" as well as "fascist."

Priceless.

I'm sure you must be in a great hurry...not enough time to point out all the errors in the thread....

...but not even one?

Far less than priceless: vacuous.

 

[daveman]

Today's conservatives want "industry" to BE the government. They want to turn over control of the country to corporations. Why they think organizations with a profit motive would be better then what we have now is beyond me.

Today's leftists are stupid.