Very OT - Fahrenheit 9/11

Okay, you want primary source material.

The Treaty of Tripoli was apparently not explicit enough for you when it
said "not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion", this was
signed by George Washington on 11-4-1796, ratified by 2/3 of the Senate
(which if a majority believed it was founded on the Christian religion could
have had this minor phrase removed) on 6-7-1797, and signed into law by John
Adams on 6-10-1797. All these people were there when the USA was formed.
Also none of the quotes you gave have the words "Jesus", "Christ" or
"Christianity". Please note that most of mine do.

As far as Christian basis for US law, here is Thomas Jefferson's take on
that:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time
by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took
place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not
introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian
king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the
last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which
the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have
existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the
common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement
of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of
religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the
common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we
may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on
earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814)

As to Jefferson's opinion on Christianity in his own words:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme
Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope
that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will
do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive
and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the
falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations,
and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the
latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that
he was an impostor"
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

How about Thomas Paine (author of "Common Sense"):

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant
Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called
Christianity.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Or would you like John Adams:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in
the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines
and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
- John Adams

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it.
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson 5/5/1817)

Or how about that crafty politician Benjamin Franklin:

Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the
substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they
produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the
writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be
refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a
word, I soon became a thorough Deist
- Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, p. 66).

A little later, but the spirit carries on with Abraham Lincoln:

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession"
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter of W. Perkins).

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and
the human origin of the Scriptures have become clearer and stronger with
advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Judge Wakefield, 1862)

These are words out of the pens of the founding fathers, with references
so you can look them up for yourself. I have more if you would like. I am
not putting words or interpretations in peoples mouths.
You obviously do not understand Deism, which rejected the divinity of
Jesus (or Krshna or any other historical figure). Just because Jefferson or
Washington or any other person mentions "God" or a "Creator" does not mean
that person agrees with Christianity on the nature or dogma regarding that
God or Creator. Abraham and Zoraster and others were preaching monotheism
long before Jesus. I know of no reference of Jefferson that says he
believed in the Bible, except possibly for some historical information. I
have seen someone say he referred to it as a "dunghill", but I have yet to
find the source on that so I can't verify it.

While there isn't a Fundamentalist Church or Evangelical Church of any
size (I'm sure there are ones with those names somewhere), in the late
1700's there were Catholicism, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Calvinism and maybe some others of little following or consequence at the
time. Charles Wesley didn't preach his first sermon until 1739 and there
was a Methodist Church founded in America in the 1780's (I find conflicts in
the actual dates). None of these are what I would call "fundamentalist" or
"evangelical". Roger Williams founded a Baptist Church in 1638 (maybe that
is a fundamentalist church in the modern sense, but I doubt it was at the
time). It wasn't until 1830 (long after the American Revolution), that the
Campbell brother separated the Church of Christ from the Disciples. This
was accompanied by other movements which are now usually referred to as
"fundamentalist" or "evangelical".

As I said before, I am not hostile to Christianity and feel there is no
harm in Jesus' teachings or for that matter Siddhartha's (Buddha),
Mohammed's or whatever. They all say pretty much the same thing. And I
never said that there were no Christians in the Continental Congress, But if
they were so strong in their Christianity and wanted the USA to be a
Christian nation, then why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in either the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? There is only a passing
mention of a Creator in the Declaration, which Jefferson clearly did not
mean to be the Christian notion. Again the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
and ratified with in the first two years after the Declaration EXPLICITLY
REJECTS the idea of the USA being founded on Christianity.
One reason the founding fathers rejected Christianity was because the
King and Church used Christianity as a method of keeping kings in power. It
was called "Divine Right of Rule" and to reject it meant to reject
Christianity as it was taught in the 1700's. You are the one engaging in
revisionist history my friend, and I realize it is not your fault. I
looked hard into this when I first realized that it was true and am still
looking into it. But the notion of the US as a Christian country actually
started in the mid 1800's in an era of Christian revivalism. It surprised
me too.
It is not that there is so much bias against Christianity as much as
Christianity has so much bias against those that think differently. And
since the majority of Americans seems to at least pay lip service to a
Christian faith, there is a tendency to impose that idea and tradition on
non-Christians. For example Rosh Hashanah is not a national holiday,
Christmas is. If a prayer is said in school or a government sponsored
event, it is a Christian one. Since the revival of the mid 1800s, it has
only been in the last 50 years or so that alternative views could get an
open forum. What Christians view as hostility is people saying, "No, that
is not what I believe and you are not going to force me to act like that is
what I believe".

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message k.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Actually Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and John Adams were Deists.
They were definitely not Christian. Washington went to church, but
there
are no reports of him taking communion, so it looks like it may have
been
more of an appearance thing. There were strong Christians in the
Continental Congress, but not fundamentalists or evangelicals as we
think
of
since those churches had not been founded yet.

I'm not sure what definition you're giving to "Christian"... it seems
pretty
narrow. All of the above considered themselves believers.... all you need
to
do is read anything they wrote and you'll see frequent and often
impassioned
references to the God of the Bible. And actually there is no church called
the Fundamentalist Church or even the Evangelical Church.... so I'm not
sure
what you mean by "had not been founded yet".

The early settlers of the US had diverse practices and interpretations to
be
sure, as is true of the church today, but they were all based on the
Bible,
even the Deists, who believed God made things as reported in the Bible and
pretty much left us to our own devices. They certainly could not be
classified as buddhists, hindus, or pagans!

I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone. What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral life?

It really bothers me that revisionist history is insisting that the
founders
of our country were not Christians. Please read the actual things that
they
wrote, not somebody's opinion of what they wrote! They all agreed that
they
did not want or need a NATIONAL church or one promoted by the government.
But they never advocated that religion should be absent from public or
private life.

Here is an exerpt from Washington's 1st Thanksgiving address:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to
pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to
all
the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to
protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have
shown
kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and
virtue,
and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto
all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be
best."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::

Washington also made a very interesting comment in his charge to the now
infamous Benedict Arnold who was on a mission to Canada in 1775: "I also
give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the
Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true
Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors
without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we
should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others,
ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to
him only in this Case, they are answerable."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::
If you want to read more of what Washington wrote, the Library of Congress
has 65,000 documents online.

Thomas Jefferson in his 2nd Inaugural Address said this:
"I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, Who led our
for
efathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a
country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; Who has
covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His
wisdom
and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in
supplications,
that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their
councils,
and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your
good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of
all
nations."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...rowse?id=Deity

Need I go on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770

I didn't know that.
The Bill of Right always seemed to me to be a blueprint for a revolution.
Freedom of press, assembly, speech, religion, prohibition of unreasonable
search and seizure, not having to incriminate oneself, right to bear arms
and create a militia all point to this.
After all, they founding fathers had committed capital treason and by
putting in the provisions of the bill of rights they made their activities
legal.

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"vj" wrote in message
...
vj found this in rec.crafts.beads, from "Louis Cage"
:

]This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion
in
]it.
]- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson 5/5/1817)

LOL!
the puritans, at the time of the proposal of the Bill of Rights,
considered all the authors to be "godless pagans" and really objected
to the first amendment. that they got it passed at all was something
of a wonder!


-----------
@vicki [SnuggleWench]
(Books) http://www.booksnbytes.com
newest creations: http://www.vickijean.com/new.html
-----------
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Here, here, I applaud your good research and comments. What we need is more
tolerance for all religions without forces ours on others. I love debate,
keep it coming. Thank God we live in a great country where debate is allowed
without being put in jail for our beliefs.
Roxan
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Okay, you want primary source material.

The Treaty of Tripoli was apparently not explicit enough for you when
it
said "not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion", this was
signed by George Washington on 11-4-1796, ratified by 2/3 of the Senate
(which if a majority believed it was founded on the Christian religion
could
have had this minor phrase removed) on 6-7-1797, and signed into law by
John
Adams on 6-10-1797. All these people were there when the USA was formed.
Also none of the quotes you gave have the words "Jesus", "Christ" or
"Christianity". Please note that most of mine do.

As far as Christian basis for US law, here is Thomas Jefferson's take on
that:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was
introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to
time
by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna
Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took
place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not
introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian
king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of
the
last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which
the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have
existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the
common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the
settlement
of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system
of
religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the
common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we
may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on
earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common
law."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814)

As to Jefferson's opinion on Christianity in his own words:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme
Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may
hope
that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will
do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive
and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the
falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark,
Luke,
and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations,
and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the
latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that
he was an impostor"
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

How about Thomas Paine (author of "Common Sense"):

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant
Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called
Christianity.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Or would you like John Adams:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere
in
the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines
and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
- John Adams

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it.
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson 5/5/1817)

Or how about that crafty politician Benjamin Franklin:

Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the
substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they
produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the
writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be
refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In
a
word, I soon became a thorough Deist
- Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, p. 66).

A little later, but the spirit carries on with Abraham Lincoln:

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession"
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter of W. Perkins).

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and
the human origin of the Scriptures have become clearer and stronger with
advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Judge Wakefield, 1862)

These are words out of the pens of the founding fathers, with references
so you can look them up for yourself. I have more if you would like. I
am
not putting words or interpretations in peoples mouths.
You obviously do not understand Deism, which rejected the divinity of
Jesus (or Krshna or any other historical figure). Just because Jefferson
or
Washington or any other person mentions "God" or a "Creator" does not mean
that person agrees with Christianity on the nature or dogma regarding that
God or Creator. Abraham and Zoraster and others were preaching monotheism
long before Jesus. I know of no reference of Jefferson that says he
believed in the Bible, except possibly for some historical information. I
have seen someone say he referred to it as a "dunghill", but I have yet to
find the source on that so I can't verify it.

While there isn't a Fundamentalist Church or Evangelical Church of any
size (I'm sure there are ones with those names somewhere), in the late
1700's there were Catholicism, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Calvinism and maybe some others of little following or consequence at the
time. Charles Wesley didn't preach his first sermon until 1739 and there
was a Methodist Church founded in America in the 1780's (I find conflicts
in
the actual dates). None of these are what I would call "fundamentalist"
or
"evangelical". Roger Williams founded a Baptist Church in 1638 (maybe
that
is a fundamentalist church in the modern sense, but I doubt it was at the
time). It wasn't until 1830 (long after the American Revolution), that
the
Campbell brother separated the Church of Christ from the Disciples. This
was accompanied by other movements which are now usually referred to as
"fundamentalist" or "evangelical".

As I said before, I am not hostile to Christianity and feel there is no
harm in Jesus' teachings or for that matter Siddhartha's (Buddha),
Mohammed's or whatever. They all say pretty much the same thing. And I
never said that there were no Christians in the Continental Congress, But
if
they were so strong in their Christianity and wanted the USA to be a
Christian nation, then why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in either
the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? There is only a passing
mention of a Creator in the Declaration, which Jefferson clearly did not
mean to be the Christian notion. Again the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
and ratified with in the first two years after the Declaration EXPLICITLY
REJECTS the idea of the USA being founded on Christianity.
One reason the founding fathers rejected Christianity was because the
King and Church used Christianity as a method of keeping kings in power.
It
was called "Divine Right of Rule" and to reject it meant to reject
Christianity as it was taught in the 1700's. You are the one engaging in
revisionist history my friend, and I realize it is not your fault. I
looked hard into this when I first realized that it was true and am still
looking into it. But the notion of the US as a Christian country actually
started in the mid 1800's in an era of Christian revivalism. It surprised
me too.
It is not that there is so much bias against Christianity as much as
Christianity has so much bias against those that think differently. And
since the majority of Americans seems to at least pay lip service to a
Christian faith, there is a tendency to impose that idea and tradition on
non-Christians. For example Rosh Hashanah is not a national holiday,
Christmas is. If a prayer is said in school or a government sponsored
event, it is a Christian one. Since the revival of the mid 1800s, it has
only been in the last 50 years or so that alternative views could get an
open forum. What Christians view as hostility is people saying, "No, that
is not what I believe and you are not going to force me to act like that
is
what I believe".

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message k.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Actually Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and John Adams were
Deists.
They were definitely not Christian. Washington went to church, but
there
are no reports of him taking communion, so it looks like it may have
been
more of an appearance thing. There were strong Christians in the
Continental Congress, but not fundamentalists or evangelicals as we
think
of
since those churches had not been founded yet.

I'm not sure what definition you're giving to "Christian"... it seems
pretty
narrow. All of the above considered themselves believers.... all you
need
to
do is read anything they wrote and you'll see frequent and often
impassioned
references to the God of the Bible. And actually there is no church
called
the Fundamentalist Church or even the Evangelical Church.... so I'm not
sure
what you mean by "had not been founded yet".

The early settlers of the US had diverse practices and interpretations
to
be
sure, as is true of the church today, but they were all based on the
Bible,
even the Deists, who believed God made things as reported in the Bible
and
pretty much left us to our own devices. They certainly could not be
classified as buddhists, hindus, or pagans!

I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in
Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding
of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone. What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral
life?

It really bothers me that revisionist history is insisting that the
founders
of our country were not Christians. Please read the actual things that
they
wrote, not somebody's opinion of what they wrote! They all agreed that
they
did not want or need a NATIONAL church or one promoted by the
government.
But they never advocated that religion should be absent from public or
private life.

Here is an exerpt from Washington's 1st Thanksgiving address:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to
pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether
in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to
all
the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to
protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have
shown
kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and
virtue,
and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant
unto
all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be
best."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::

Washington also made a very interesting comment in his charge to the now
infamous Benedict Arnold who was on a mission to Canada in 1775: "I also
give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the
Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true
Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors
without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we
should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others,
ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and
to
him only in this Case, they are answerable."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::
If you want to read more of what Washington wrote, the Library of
Congress
has 65,000 documents online.

Thomas Jefferson in his 2nd Inaugural Address said this:
"I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, Who led our
for
efathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in
a
country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; Who has
covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His
wisdom
and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in
supplications,
that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their
councils,
and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your
good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of
all
nations."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...rowse?id=Deity

Need I go on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770

Having just gone through seeing my dad died a difficult death and having him
beg me for euthanasia, I would have given him it in a heart beat if it was
allowed. This is a choice we should all be allowed to do it we want to.
There is a time for everything, a time to live and a time to die and
honoring it is the highest form of knowing ourselves. I only hope when my
time comes it will be legal in my state. While there are many lesson to be
learned in the dying process there is a time when suffering and no quality
of life is the only thing left. If I could have eased my dad passing I would
have done it with no guilt and with joy that he didn't have to suffer any
longer.
Roxan
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Well, US courts never had anything to do with German Nazis. Nor does
the
US Constitution, which gives the right of free speech to US citizens, it
never guaranteed it to Germans during the early 20th century (or today for
that matter). I think there have been some rulings regarding allowing the
American Nazi Party to print publications and peaceably assemble, which
are
explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
The Dred Scott decision was more about property rights, at that time
the
US Constitution allowed the heinous practice of slavery. Which meant the
Constitution defined a group of people as less than others, not the court.
It was more like bringing whiskey into a dry county or state. Whether it
was the correct decision in the context of the times can be debated
(personally I think it was too broad and left a lot of loopholes), but it
still was operating under the established rule of law which still allowed
slavery in a lot of the US. Slavery was an allowed practice when America
was colonized (invaded?). It just was more economically viable in the
south and the northern area abandoned the practice. There is a more
interest in this history since a slave graveyard was unearthed in New York
recently.
So that leaves the abortion / sanctity of life thing, which your whole
mention of Dred Scott and Nazis seemed to be used to only support your
statements regarding fetuses and euthanasia.
Since so far the only people who have requested the courts to view
euthanasia are the terminally ill or their families (under the direction
of
the patient before they were incapacitated), they are requesting the
"right
to die" for themselves. As far as what is done in other countries, I
don't
know and defer to your research on that. But I think if you would look
into
it on a case by case basis, rather than some simple statistics, you will
find that in the case of the "chronic conditions" you mention, it was the
request of the patient. There are definitely situations that I believe I
would like to be euthanized rather than just suffer a chronic situation
that
would never go away.
Again I have no desire to get into a long debate abut euthanasia
either.
I have debated the whole activist judge thing with people and every
decision I check into, Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc., the
court was basing its findings on the rule of law, generally going beyond
case law and back into legal code and the Constitution. By the time a
case
gets to the Supreme Court, generally it is a situation where a good
argument
can be made for both sides and someone has to be able to have a final say.
Since the US has no sovereign, the Supreme Court has to do this. And as
someone else pointed out, when it doesn't go their way, the political
right
uses the catchphrase "activist judges". The Library of Congress released
a
series of courtroom audio tapes of some of the more landmark decision of
the
court, along with written commentary and analysis. I have heard a few of
those and they are definitely worth looking into if anyone is really
interested in how the Supreme Court actually works.

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message ink.net...
Boy do you miss the point!!! Which is, the courts should never be able
to
relegate any type of human to a subclass without equal rights... as they
did
in Nazi Germany to the Jews, as they did in the US with the Dred Scott
decisions, and as they did in the US with Roe v. Wade. And as they will
if
the trend toward legalized euthanasia continues.

And the courts should not be able to create law or to ignore the state
and
federal consitutions, as recently happened in Nevada.

--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770
PayPal Merchant Account
https://www.paypal.com/mrb/pal=7XJ98L86Z7S2C
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Oh, so you are all about abortion.
Without getting into a long and fruitless debate (it's a subject
where
I
have rarely met anyone who changed their mind on it, although I
personally
did), let me recommend a book I read in an ethics class in college:
"The
Rights and Wrongs of Abortion" by John Finnis; Marshall Cohen; Thomas
Nagel;
Thomas Scanlon 1974 Princeton Press. It is a thin book with a
collection
of
four essays, two pro-life and two pro-choice, each selected by their
particular groups. It really gets into the nitty gritty of some of
the
issues and cuts through the emotional stuff. A good read regardless
of
which side of the fence you are on. It lets you see both sides
complete
argument devoid of slogans and sensationalist pictures or statistics.


--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message . net...
"Lisa" wrote in message
news:bN0Ec.194535$Ly.156855@attbi_s01...

]I'm much more alarmed at activist judges that are creating
legislation
]instead of judging based on law. Many people applaud when they
think
that
]the "right" is losing religious ground, they won't be so happy
when
the
same
]standard is applied to them.

Newbie here, I really hate to introduce myself on a
controversial thread, but I can't help it. From what
I've seen, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a
decision that those on the right don't like.

I think the problem is more far reaching than that. Consider this
quote:

"Legislative enactments, presidential actions, and amendments to the
Constitution are all things which publically announce changes in the
law
of
the land, providing foreknowledge of changes in the legal framework
within
which free people may plan and act. Moreover, all the processes are
ultimately responsible to the people themselves and can be reversed
if
the
peole find them onerous. Judge-made innovations are, in effect,
expost
facto
laws, which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution and
abhorrent
to
the
rule of law. For courts to strike like a bolt from the blue hitting
an
unsuspecting citizen, who was disobeying no law that he could have
known
beforehand, is the essence of judicial tyranny, however moral or
just
the
judges may imagine their innovation to be. The harm is not limited
to
the
particular damage this may do in a particular case, great as that
may
sometimes be, but makes all other laws into murky storm clouds,
potential
sources of other bolts from the blue, contrary to the whole notion
of
"a
government of laws and not of men."
***
The quest for cosmic justice via the judiciary--law as an "agent of
change",
as it is often phrased--quietly repeals the foundations of the
American
revolution. It reduces a free people to a subject people, subject
now
to
the
edicts of unelected judges enforcing "evolving standards" and made
more
heedless by their exhalted sense of moral superiority. It is one of
the
most
dangerous of many ways in which towering presumptions are a threat
to
the
freedom of America."

This is exerpted from Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice"
(page
167) on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts?page=85

My hubby and I watched a grand old b/w movie recently about the
Nuremberg
Trials. Spencer Tracy was the judge. It was a fascinating look at
the
ideas
that shaped the Nazi movement and how they were implemented. The
judges
began to use the Nazi ideology to shape their decisions, in which
innocent
people were convicted of spurious allegations simply because they
were
Jews.
In a final scene, one of the judges who was on trial and convicted
made
the
statement that he never realized how far it would go and never meant
for
the
slaughter of millions of Jews to take place. Spencer Tracy said that
it
went
too far when the first innocent person was convicted.

I've read many books about the Holocaust. My father was wounded two
times
in
WWII seeking to help liberate France and the concentration camps.
I've
tried
very hard to understand how and why 6 million Jews and 5 million
non-Jews
could be sacrificed to such a brittle philosophy. The Nazis cared
very
passionately about their national identity, and more so about their
supposed
Aryan supremacy. They were certainly exercising their "right" of
free
speech, weren't they? And their ideas were so powerful that they
swept
everyone with them in a tidal flood of destruction. Beyond that,
they
influenced a whole generation to their way of thinking, including
"activist
judges" who handed out the sentences that helped make being a Jew
criminal.

11 million people sacrificed to an ideal.

Since 1971, 3,000 Americans per day, 1.5 million Americans per year,
about
50 million Americans to date, have been sacrificed to an ideal...
almost
5
times the toll of the Nazi Holocaust. It started with activist
justices
and
their sympathy for the plight of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.
It
was
fueled by a symbol - remember the ubiquitous coat hanger with a
slash
through it? It has been continued by the cry for reproductive
rights -
although how destroying a fetus is "reproductive" is beyond me. It
is
certinally politically incorrect to dispute such a feminist dogma,
probably
even financially suicidal to even bring it up here....

50 million people ... and counting... sacrificed to an ideal.

I'm wondering, was it worth it?

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court subjugated the rights
of
the
slave to the slave owner. The disastrous effects of this nonsense is
still
being felt today. To relegate one "type" of human being to subhuman
status
for the benefit of another has been shown to be bad law, as well as
morally
wrong. Yet the "type" of human being known as a "fetus" has had
subhuman
status since 1971, thanks to activist justices.

Euthanasia is next on the list, let's see who'll be relegatred to
subhuman
status now. Who decides who is no longer useful or necessary? Will
it
be
the
person's family, perhaps eager to collect an inheritance? Will it be
the
HMO, who will not find it profitable to continue a person's
existance?
Will
it be some court, deciding when to "pull the plug"? (Wait, they do
this
already...) Statistics from countries who already practice
euthanasia
show
that it is often the primary physician, the person's own doctor whom
they
have trusted with their very life, who decides, without any input
from
any
one, including the patient, that their life span is over. Many of
these
patients did NOT have a terminal illness, just chronic conditions
that
were
expensive to treat.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... basic rights out of
which
all
the others flow. But activist justices in 1971 decided that the most
innocent and defenseless of all our citizens didn't have any basic
rights,
no rights at all. Slave=Jew=Fetus, it's all the same thing. And
Euthanasia
will add to the list: the Aged, the Infirm, the Mentally Unfit, the
Unwanted, the Chronically Ill .... You?

As Thomas Sowell was quoted above:
"The quest for cosmic justice via the judiciary--law as an "agent of
change", as it is often phrased--quietly repeals the foundations of
the
American revolution. It reduces a free people to a subject people,
subject
now to the edicts of unelected judges enforcing "evolving standards"
and
made more heedless by their exhalted sense of moral superiority. It
is
one
of the most dangerous of many ways in which towering presumptions
are
a
threat to the freedom of America."

Hospice was wonderful and gave him a lot of comfort. He didn't have pain but
he had a lot of difficult towards the end with breathing. They gave him
morphine which helped him breath slower. With euthanasia it could have
avoided all of this towards the end. If it ever becomes legal they would put
safe guards in so it is only the decision of the patient and would have to
go through a process to be approved by doctors and counseling. This I think
is the right thing to do. In places where it is legal there are many safe
guards to protect the rights of the dying so they are not abused. I haven't
heard of any wide spread abuse since they have this in place. We are kinder
to our pets then we are for human when it is their time.
Roxan
"Kathy N-V" wrote in message
. giganews.com...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:44:27 -0400, roxan wrote
(in message ):

Having just gone through seeing my dad died a difficult death and having
him
beg me for euthanasia, I would have given him it in a heart beat if it
was
allowed. This is a choice we should all be allowed to do it we want to.

Roxan, I am so sorry that your Dad suffered so. Was his request
precipitated by unendurable pain? I know that we were able to help
my MIL in the last weeks of her life by easing her pain, with the
help of the hospice people.

There is a time for everything, a time to live and a time to die and
honoring it is the highest form of knowing ourselves. I only hope when
my
time comes it will be legal in my state. While there are many lesson to
be
learned in the dying process there is a time when suffering and no
quality
of life is the only thing left. If I could have eased my dad passing I
would
have done it with no guilt and with joy that he didn't have to suffer
any
longer.

Which is why I'm so supportive of hospice. They do not speed the
dying process, they just do nothing to slow it. Unlike doctors, they
do not view death as a defeat to be fought at all costs. Their
entire goal is to make the person comfortable and their passing
peaceful and painless.

I am definitely on the fence when it comes to Euthanasia. My concern
is that it would morph from a decision made by an individual for
reasons of his own to a decision made by others. A person with a
limited life span who decides that checking out is a better choice
than sticking around is one thing - a person whose family (or the
state) decides would be "better off dead" is another thing
altoghether.

At one time, in another administration, I wouldn't have been
concerned that the state would involve themselves in such a decision.
But with the incredible erosion of personal liberties that I've
observed in this administration, I think it's a real danger that some
government official would someday make the decision of who doesn't
deserve to live any longer.

I'd hate to have someone's lifespan influenced by the cost of caring
for them. It's not such a bold leap to consider that if the
government could make the decision for an individual, the government
could be influenced by an insurance company. Heaven knows that
corporations have been in bed with government for a long, long time.

As for the United States being a Christian nation or not, I need only
cite the example of the theocracies in the Middle East. Invariably,
a state religion allows zealots to gain power, which curtails the
freedoms of everyone, under the concept that the will of God demands
it. I greatly prefer the separation of church and state, which allows
the people to choose for themselves.

Kathy N-V

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:12:13 GMT, "Karleen/Vibrant Jewels"
wrote:

Boy do you miss the point!!! Which is, the courts should never be able to
relegate any type of human to a subclass without equal rights... as they did
in Nazi Germany to the Jews, as they did in the US with the Dred Scott
decisions, and as they did in the US with Roe v. Wade. And as they will if
the trend toward legalized euthanasia continues.

And the courts should not be able to create law or to ignore the state and
federal consitutions, as recently happened in Nevada.

Such as creating a subclass of breederwomen with no choice in the
matter....

Lindsey

Karleen stated:

And actually there is no church called the Fundamentalist Church or even
the Evangelical Church.... so I'm not sure
what you mean by "had not been founded yet".

Um, that's not entirely correct. Many protestant denominations title
themselves as evangelical churches. The Lutheran church I was raised in was
one of them (St Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church). Run a Google search on
"Evangelical Church" and you'll get THOUSANDS of results. Then there's the
split-off Mormon church (though not the SLC version) which is officially
titled Fundamentalist church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's the
polygamous branch (whole 'nother kettle o'fish) but the title is there. And
certainly many protestant sects have embraced a "fundamentalist" set of
values for year. Falwell has used the term many times in his monologues.

KarenK

The Bill of Right always seemed to me to be a blueprint for a revolution.
Freedom of press, assembly, speech, religion, prohibition of unreasonable
search and seizure, not having to incriminate oneself, right to bear arms
and create a militia all point to this.

I can't remember the exact words, but Jefferson made a comment in one of his
essays (maybe a letter to Adams) about the fact that each generation should
have a revolution to basically keep on top of things and adjust to progress.

KarenK

well, this was very interesting. there does seem to be some
misinformation going around the christian church regarding this issue.
i know i have been told emphatically by church leaders that the
nation was founded on a christian world view. perhaps they truly
beleive it. unfortunately, i do agree that we are in an age where
once again religious beleifs are being used to manipulate honest
people's loyalties to further the agendas of those who have no Godly
intentions. or highly perverted ones at best.


"Louis Cage" wrote in message ...
Okay, you want primary source material.

The Treaty of Tripoli was apparently not explicit enough for you when it
said "not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion", this was
signed by George Washington on 11-4-1796, ratified by 2/3 of the Senate
(which if a majority believed it was founded on the Christian religion could
have had this minor phrase removed) on 6-7-1797, and signed into law by John
Adams on 6-10-1797. All these people were there when the USA was formed.
Also none of the quotes you gave have the words "Jesus", "Christ" or
"Christianity". Please note that most of mine do.

As far as Christian basis for US law, here is Thomas Jefferson's take on
that:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced
by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time
by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took
place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not
introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian
king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the
last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which
the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have
existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the
common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement
of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of
religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the
common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we
may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on
earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814)

As to Jefferson's opinion on Christianity in his own words:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme
Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope
that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will
do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive
and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the
falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations,
and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the
latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that
he was an impostor"
- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Adams; Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

How about Thomas Paine (author of "Common Sense"):

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant
Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called
Christianity.
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Or would you like John Adams:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in
the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines
and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
- John Adams

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross.
Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it.
- John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson 5/5/1817)

Or how about that crafty politician Benjamin Franklin:

Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the
substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they
produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the
writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be
refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a
word, I soon became a thorough Deist
- Benjamin Franklin (Autobiography, p. 66).

A little later, but the spirit carries on with Abraham Lincoln:

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession"
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter of W. Perkins).

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and
the human origin of the Scriptures have become clearer and stronger with
advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
- Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Judge Wakefield, 1862)

These are words out of the pens of the founding fathers, with references
so you can look them up for yourself. I have more if you would like. I am
not putting words or interpretations in peoples mouths.
You obviously do not understand Deism, which rejected the divinity of
Jesus (or Krshna or any other historical figure). Just because Jefferson or
Washington or any other person mentions "God" or a "Creator" does not mean
that person agrees with Christianity on the nature or dogma regarding that
God or Creator. Abraham and Zoraster and others were preaching monotheism
long before Jesus. I know of no reference of Jefferson that says he
believed in the Bible, except possibly for some historical information. I
have seen someone say he referred to it as a "dunghill", but I have yet to
find the source on that so I can't verify it.

While there isn't a Fundamentalist Church or Evangelical Church of any
size (I'm sure there are ones with those names somewhere), in the late
1700's there were Catholicism, Anglican, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Calvinism and maybe some others of little following or consequence at the
time. Charles Wesley didn't preach his first sermon until 1739 and there
was a Methodist Church founded in America in the 1780's (I find conflicts in
the actual dates). None of these are what I would call "fundamentalist" or
"evangelical". Roger Williams founded a Baptist Church in 1638 (maybe that
is a fundamentalist church in the modern sense, but I doubt it was at the
time). It wasn't until 1830 (long after the American Revolution), that the
Campbell brother separated the Church of Christ from the Disciples. This
was accompanied by other movements which are now usually referred to as
"fundamentalist" or "evangelical".

As I said before, I am not hostile to Christianity and feel there is no
harm in Jesus' teachings or for that matter Siddhartha's (Buddha),
Mohammed's or whatever. They all say pretty much the same thing. And I
never said that there were no Christians in the Continental Congress, But if
they were so strong in their Christianity and wanted the USA to be a
Christian nation, then why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in either the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? There is only a passing
mention of a Creator in the Declaration, which Jefferson clearly did not
mean to be the Christian notion. Again the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
and ratified with in the first two years after the Declaration EXPLICITLY
REJECTS the idea of the USA being founded on Christianity.
One reason the founding fathers rejected Christianity was because the
King and Church used Christianity as a method of keeping kings in power. It
was called "Divine Right of Rule" and to reject it meant to reject
Christianity as it was taught in the 1700's. You are the one engaging in
revisionist history my friend, and I realize it is not your fault. I
looked hard into this when I first realized that it was true and am still
looking into it. But the notion of the US as a Christian country actually
started in the mid 1800's in an era of Christian revivalism. It surprised
me too.
It is not that there is so much bias against Christianity as much as
Christianity has so much bias against those that think differently. And
since the majority of Americans seems to at least pay lip service to a
Christian faith, there is a tendency to impose that idea and tradition on
non-Christians. For example Rosh Hashanah is not a national holiday,
Christmas is. If a prayer is said in school or a government sponsored
event, it is a Christian one. Since the revival of the mid 1800s, it has
only been in the last 50 years or so that alternative views could get an
open forum. What Christians view as hostility is people saying, "No, that
is not what I believe and you are not going to force me to act like that is
what I believe".

--
There are no mistakes, only unexplored techniques

"Karleen/Vibrant Jewels" wrote in
message k.net...
"Louis Cage" wrote in message
...
Actually Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and John Adams were Deists.
They were definitely not Christian. Washington went to church, but
there
are no reports of him taking communion, so it looks like it may have
been
more of an appearance thing. There were strong Christians in the
Continental Congress, but not fundamentalists or evangelicals as we
think
of
since those churches had not been founded yet.

I'm not sure what definition you're giving to "Christian"... it seems
pretty
narrow. All of the above considered themselves believers.... all you need
to
do is read anything they wrote and you'll see frequent and often
impassioned
references to the God of the Bible. And actually there is no church called
the Fundamentalist Church or even the Evangelical Church.... so I'm not
sure
what you mean by "had not been founded yet".

The early settlers of the US had diverse practices and interpretations to
be
sure, as is true of the church today, but they were all based on the
Bible,
even the Deists, who believed God made things as reported in the Bible and
pretty much left us to our own devices. They certainly could not be
classified as buddhists, hindus, or pagans!

I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone. What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral life?

It really bothers me that revisionist history is insisting that the
founders
of our country were not Christians. Please read the actual things that
they
wrote, not somebody's opinion of what they wrote! They all agreed that
they
did not want or need a NATIONAL church or one promoted by the government.
But they never advocated that religion should be absent from public or
private life.

Here is an exerpt from Washington's 1st Thanksgiving address:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to
pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in
public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties
properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to
all
the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and
constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to
protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have
shown
kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and
virtue,
and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto
all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be
best."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::

Washington also made a very interesting comment in his charge to the now
infamous Benedict Arnold who was on a mission to Canada in 1775: "I also
give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the
Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true
Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors
without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we
should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others,
ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to
him only in this Case, they are answerable."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_czp3::
If you want to read more of what Washington wrote, the Library of Congress
has 65,000 documents online.

Thomas Jefferson in his 2nd Inaugural Address said this:
"I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, Who led our
for
efathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a
country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; Who has
covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His
wisdom
and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in
supplications,
that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their
councils,
and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your
good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of
all
nations."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...rowse?id=Deity

Need I go on?
--
Karleen Page/Vibrant Jewels
Vibrant Jewels Online Bead & Jewelry Store
http://www.vibrantjewels.com/jewelry/welcome.htm
JustBead Auctions
http://www.justbeads.com/search/ql.cfm?s=21770

Some stuff snipped -

Karleen/Vibrant Jewels wrote:
I don't understand why there is so much bias against Christians in our
culture, especially on this board. The very root of Christianity is free
choice... God is not going to force anyone to serve Him or believe in Him,
and any Christian who tries to coerce belief has no basic understanding of
scripture. Christians are no threat to anyone.

My feeling is that "Christianity" as a concept may not a threat to
anyone. On the other hand, a lot of *people* who claim to be Christians
can be extremely threatening.

What harm is there in
following the teachings of Jesus and trying to live a loving, moral life?

Moral according to whom?

Cheers,
Carla (atheist)