More Lunder Collection

Colby College Museum Of Art Lunder Collection Preview

THE AIRMEN OF EASTERN AIR LINES

 Dedication of Eastern Air Lines Pilots Bronze Memorial on December 2011

AIRLINE OPERATIONS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS circa 1965

 PLANE TALK

Airline Operations before microchip processing and satellite communications.

At 7:45 minutes into this video taken in and of the  Eastern
Airlines Consolidated Reservations Center in Charlotte, NC in 1964
is a friend whose friendship continues to this day.

The decade between 1960 into early 1970s commercial aviation
experienced a radical transition into national and worldwide
mass transportation systems as aviation continued its transfer from
propeller powered aircraft to jet powered, radically transforming
aviation operations.

Man first walked on the moon in July 1969 with the computing
power of today's laptop computer, which in 1969 computing power
infrastructure consisted of city blocks.


 

COLBY COLLEGE MUSEUM OF ART

">

Jascha Heifitz Plays Caprice

Paganini's Caprice


Jascah Heifitz was born on this day in 1901. 

The violin appears to have a soul of its own as the bow dances across the strings as if it were the greatest of ballerinas calling one to the poetry of the music.

 

More Nana Mouskouri

"Only Love"

The Beautiful Isle of Santorini, Greece

"A Place In My Heart" sung by Nana Mouskouri

Aquifer Map of US

The following link will take you to information on the various aspects
of aquifers of how they are formed, how important they are for
water supply and the danger of contaminates to those systems and
the populations in which they serve, as well as the food supply chains
which are produced in those areas.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es1406/es1406page10.cfm


Please note the largest one in the US, also one of the largest ones in the world, is the Hi Plains Aquifer located predominately in Nebraska and Kansas, the key states through which would run the  XL Pipeline proposal from the shale oil deposits in Canada to the oil refineries in the watersheds of the Mississippi Delta.

Empire of Illusion

The following link is an interview with Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper war correspondent, well expresses what is happening to overall global culture. Beginning with US influence on the wider world cultures, it summarizes the breakdown in all the spheres of life, first in the American culture and as it is transported and proliferates into the wider world of other cultures, and how life becomes increasingly unsustainable in any real sense as the human race has experienced history. 

 http://tinyurl.com/3fhl7co

An important voice in today's world.

Fly in a Vintage Airliner - DC7

Science vs Faith

 

All commentary in parenthesis provided by the author of this website.

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The professor of philosophy, an atheist, pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"Are you Christian, student?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

" Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."  (Consider Genesis Chapter1:31: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.)

The professor says, "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? "Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The professor is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?"  In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"God made Satan, didn't he?" "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen. Tell me. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All those terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

"Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" Then, in a still small voice, he said: "God created all evil, didn't He?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the professor breaks away to pace the front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time? All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause.

"Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ?"

The student's voice cracks, "Yes, professor. I do."

The professor says:  "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt Jesus, tasted Jesus or smelled Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer, please."

"No, sir, I'm I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH! The professor smiles. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

Defeated. The Christian sits down..

Another student raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The student looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies, "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor freezes.

The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues:

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. You can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

"There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -- You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.  We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.  Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence. 

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"Wrong, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness does not exist. If it did, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young man, "Would you mind telling us what your point is?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

"Flawed...? How!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Please do explain," replied the professor.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains; "that for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

"Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor pointing out that it is one of the most disgusting tabloids you can buy. "Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is...."

"Wrong again. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"  The student pauses.

"Evil the absence of good?"

The student continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What would that be? The Bible tells us  that it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor says, "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the student replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Do you believe that we have evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes?"  The professor remains silent. 

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion...have you quite finished?" replied the professor.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is right?"

"I believe in what is - that's observable science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" says the student. "You rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Your view of "science" is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" ...The class is in uproar.

The student remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "No sir, I mean, your view of science is flawed. To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean?" 

"The basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet in spite of that, you believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel! 


"Biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life and that animals gave birth to children of other kinds!"

The professor begins, "I believe that science will eventually...."

"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life," interrupted the student. "Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!


"Your faith is in what you are calling "science". My faith is in God who created "science".  Make no mistake, we're both operating from faith."

There follows a long pause....

"And sir!, the student went on. "Don't You create failure?! I mean, you set a standard for passing this class, sir and those who don't meet it, fail! Isn't that right? So by setting a standard and utilizing your previously expressed philosophy--you create failure! Professor, I mean has anybody ever flunked this class"?

"I may well be looking at such a someone right now", the professor said!

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

No one appears to have done so.


The student shakes his head. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind, whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The student sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.



THE END

GRAND TOUR October 1959

First trip to Europe!

London, Paris, Geneva, Chamonix, Nice and Rome
In order of appearance are Paris, Geneva, Chamonix,
Nice and Rome. No London pics.  Camera messed up.

My brother was stationed in France with the US
Air Force and met me in Paris and gave his version
of the Paris Tour!

 

Deep Water Horizon Moments After Explosion Video Live

.

THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH

The following an excerpt from a review of a blogger on the book "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"  by James D. Tabor.


"....Tabor, the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, asserts that Jesus was not establishing a new religion. Instead, Jesus was a Jew whose Messianic Movement was an apocalyptic one in which the kingdom of God would be realized on earth if Israel repented and fully embraced the Torah and the prophets. This kingdom would be one in which the earth would be filled with the knowledge of God. Thus, Jesus’ message was attempting to teach the moral, spiritual and ethical principles that would enable the realization of that kingdom."


The confusion surrounding the history of the House of Judah and the House of Israel can only be dispelled by comprehending and understanding the history of the two houses as the separate kingdoms they were. That history presented in the Old Testament clearly shows the evolution of both the religion of Judah and subsequently the religion of Christianity. Only in understanding that the House of Israel consisted of all the twelve sons of Jacob and each son's collective descendants, who, before they came to live in Eygpt, resided at Hebron in the area south of Jerusalem. It had earlier been settled by Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob, who found his way into this area after leaving Ur in the Chaldees located in the great Euphrates River Valley in present day Iraq.

It is in the understanding of the history of why Abraham left the Chaldees, where he resided throughout all the periods of his history, who his children were and their history, in as much as can be presently determined, can the current history, of not only the Middle East, but the history of man as we have come to know him be understood.  That history is presented in the Old Testament and by reading the Old Testament as history in all its contexts as has evolved, both religious and secular, can the present state of world affairs be more fully conprehended.

The Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament consisted of the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, formed into tribes, one of which was called Judah. Collectively called Israelites, the kingdom was set up to be ruled by judges, however, the Israelites came to dislike governance by judges and began to lobby for a king to rule them. Eventually their wish was granted when Saul was crowned the first king of Israel, and upon his death the kingdom devolved upon his protege, David, a descendent of Judah.

Saul had been a Benjaminite, named for Benjamin, the youngest son of Jacob, and younger full brother of Joseph, sons of Jacob's wife, Rachel.  Please note that most of Jacob's children were half siblings to each other, children of Jacob's different plural wives. David was born of the tribe of Judah and Judah's mother Leah, Jacob's first wife. It was through Judah was it prophesied that the Messiah would come, thus Jesus, as the Messiah, was of the House of Judah, a Jew.

David had originally been given the right to build the temple promised to the Israelites. But, because of transgressions of violence and upon Uriah, particularly, that right was taken away. At David's death, his son, Solomon, came to reign in his stead, and the promised temple was finally erected. Upon Solomon's death, his son, Rehoboam, became king of Israel.  And, it was during Rehoboam's reign that the incipient jealousy between the tribes of Ephraim  and Judah reached its apex, and ten of the twelve Israelite tribes seceeded, forming the Northern Kingdom, also known as the Kingdom of Ephraim, it being  the dominant group among them, with its council of government centered at Shechem.

The Northern Kingdom held the lands that had been distributed to them at the conquest of Canaan centuries before. Lands south of Shechem had been distributed to the tribes of Judah and of Benjamin and became the Kingdom of Judah at the separation of the Israelite kingdom, with its council of government centered at Jerusalem. Because of proximity to the lands of Ephraim, much of the tribe of Benjamin migrated into and became part of the Northern Kingdom, with remnants of Benjamin remaining in the Kingdom of Judah. The Apostle Paul in the New Testament was of the tribe of Benjamin.

Long before Jacob's family came to live in Eygpt, in a fit of sibling rivalry, Jacob's older sons had sold their younger brother, Joseph, into slavery where he eventually found himself in Eygpt where he came to rise up to become the chief advisor to the Pharoah. Famine came in the land of Hebron where Jacob and his family lived and learning that grain and food were available in Eygpt, Jacob sent his elder sons there to seek relief.

In an ironic twist of destiny, the person with whom they had to negotiate to obtain relief was their brother, Joseph, who recognized them as his brothers. Not recognizing him, though, they were commanded by Joseph to return home and bring their youngest brother, Benjamin, and their father to Eygpt.  When his brothers returned with their father and all their other brothers and their families, Joseph then revealed to them that he was their brother whom they had sold into slavery so long before.

Joseph then invited them to stay in Eygpt, where some 400 years later, their descendants, now a large population under oppression by the Pharoah, came to be led by Moses of the tribe of Levi, another of the sons of Jacob, out of Eygpt to return to the land of their forebears, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham..

In the book of Genesis, the first book of The Bible, is clearly told the story of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham, and of their descendants. In books after Genesis is clearly told the history of the return of the descendants of Jacob from Eygpt and the partitioning of the land into geographical locations for each of the twelve tribes of the descendants of Jacob.. 

In the remaining books of the Old Testament is chronicled the rivalries and jealousies that led to the conflicts finally separating the tribes into two kingdoms, one called Israel located in the North and the other, Judah, in the South and their evermore departure from the teachings Moses had given them during the forty years they spent wandering in the wilderness after leaving Eygpt before arriving at the home of their forefathers in the land of Canaan. 

The Assyrians in 700 BC came down into the Northern Kingdom of Israel in Bryon's words, "like a wolf on the fold", conquered and carried away the Northern ten tribes of Israel, having so disenigrated into idolatry, they no longer had the protection afforded them by the God of their fathers and His laws. They were easily defeated and carried off as slaves, with some few remnants, especially of Ephraim, left behind. They were the first of Jacob's descendants to be captured by outside forces and were eventually dispersed into the "land of the North countries". Then, in the 6th century BC, the large remaining tribe of Judah, along with what remnants remained of tribes of the northern kingdom, the outside forces of Babylonia were able to destroy what remained of the ancient country and carried Judah off into the Babylon captivity.

Later, Judah was allowed to return to Jerusalem, but, many in the tribe of Judah remained in Babylon. When the tribes in the Northern Kingdom of Israel were captured and carried off into the North countries, remnants of the tribe of Manasseh, the eldest son of Joseph had evaded capture, and about 600 BC were led by a prophet named Lehi to the Western Hemisphere, chronicled in the Book of Mormon. 

During Judah's Babylonian exile, the priestly cast of the House of Judah began to rewrite the Law of Moses during which, over the next four centuries, became the "traditions of the fathers", teachings of which Jesus was clearly at variance.

In His ministry, Jesus tried to persuade the leaders in the House of Judah to return to the the teachings of the laws of the Torah and the prophets as chronicled in the first four books of the New Testament, to fulfill a new covenant prophesied by those prophets, that He was the One promised by those same prophets as the Messiah who was to come to bring them that new covenant, a covenant that enlarged the laws given to the all the House of Israel by Moses, and  to rid the House of Judah of the teachings of the "traditions of the fathers".  History attests that the leaders of the House of Judah insisted on keeping the teachings of the "traditions of the fathers" which has continued to the present time.

Did Jesus establish a new religion or did he seek to restore the teachings of the law of Moses to House of Israel as taught from the beginning to Adam and Eve and through time to Noah, then to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to the remnants of Israel still remaining?

Those remnants exist even to this day as remnants of Joseph's son, Ephraim now, and soon, to be joined by his brother, Manasseh, preparing the earth's way out of the present chaos for the coming reign and peace of the Messiah. That chaos was not only prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments, but, also, it was prophesied in the Book of Mormon in even a fuller and more comprehensive degree than in the Bible. Thus, are the latter day prophesies being fulfilled in this the last dispensation, named the Dispensation Of The Fullness Of Times.

Modern Air Travel




Amazing!!

Air Traffic Patterns




Virtual Art!

Ellen's Paintings

Ellen Collection of Interiors

George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights

"On September 12, 1787, Elbridge Gerry and George Mason proposed that a committee be appointed to prepare a bill of rights. This proposal was unanimously rejected by the State delegations, and in consequence both withheld their signatures from the new Constitution.

Mason's Objections to This Constitution of Government were "There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security."

By the time the Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine States, several had proposed amendments to be inserted in the body of the Constitution, but no proposal had been made for a declaration of rights. On June 25, 1788, the Virginia ratifying convention appointed a committee to prepare a bill of rights. Two days later, the committee reported a proposed bill of rights, and additional amendments to be included in the Constitution.

The proposal by this committee was a nearly verbatim copy of a Master Draft that George Mason had sent to Gen. John Lamb of the Republican Committee in New York on June 9th, a copy of which remains among the Lamb Papers at the New York Historical Society.

The receipt of the Draft was acknowledged in a letter to Mason from Judge Robert Yates, June 21:

'Your letter of the 9th inst. directed to John Lamb, Esquire at New York Chairman of the Federal Republican Committee in that City enclosing your proposed Amendments to the new Constitution, has been by him transmitted to such of the Members of Our Convention, who are in sentiment with him. In consequence of this Communication a Committee has been appointed by the members in Opposition to the New System (of which they have appointed me their Chairman) with a special view to continue our correspondence on this necessary and important Subject.We are happy to find that your Sentiments with respect to the Amendments correspond so nearly with ours, and that they stand on the Broad Basis of securing the Rights and equally promoting the Happiness of every citizen in the Union.'

The provisions of the bill of rights proposed by the New York ratifying convention were primarly drawn from Mason's Master Draft, though in differing order.

North Carolina proposed a bill of rights whose provisions were nearly identical to those of the Virginia convention. The proposals later tendered by the ratifying convention of Rhode Island were probably taken directly from the Master Draft.

The bill of rights proposed by James Madison to the Congress on June 8, 1789 was a nearly verbatim copy of Virginia's proposal, which was a nearly verbatim copy of Mason's Master Draft. Elbridge Gerry probably had a copy of this Draft before him during the congressional debates on the amendments.

In preparing the Master Draft, Mason drew heavily from the Virginia Declaration of Rights which he had written 12 years earlier, and also borrowed provisions from the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as the Virginia Constitution of which he was also author. A manuscript copy of the Master Draft in George Mason's handwriting is among the Mason Papers at the Library of Congress.

Amendments to the New Constitution of Government_______
That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights, asserting and securing
from Encroachment, the Essential and Unalienable Rights of the People, in some such manner as the following. —

1. That all Freemen have certain essential inherent Rights, of which they cannot by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

2. That all Power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that Magistrates therefore are their Trustees and Agents, and at all Times amenable to them.

3. That Government ought to be instituted for the Common Benefit, Protection and Security of the People; and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a Majority of the Community hath an indubitable unalienable and indefeasible Right to reform, alter or abolish it, and to establish another, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal; and that the Doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary Power and Oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and Happiness of Mankind.

4. That no man or Set of Men are entitled to exclusive or separate public Emoluments or privileges from the Community, but in Consideration of public Services; which not being descendable neither ought the Offices of Magistrate, Legislator or Judge, or any other public Office to be hereditary.

5. That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government should be separate and distinct; and that the members of the Two first may be restrained from Oppression, by feeling and participating the public Burthens, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private Station, return into the Mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular Elections, in which all, or any part of the Former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the Rules of the Constitution of Government and the Laws shall direct.

6. That the Right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best Security of Liberty, and the Foundation of all Free Governments; for this purpose Elections ought to be free and frequent; and all men having sufficient Evidence of permanent common Interest with, and Attachment to the Community, ought to have the Right of Suffrage: And no Aid, Charge, Tax or Fee can be set, rated or levied upon the People without their own Consent, or that of their Representatives so elected; nor can they be bound by any Law to which they have not in like manner assented for the Public Good.

7. That all power of suspending Laws, or the Execution of Laws by any Authority, without Consent of the Representatives of the People in the Legislature, is injurious to their Rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8. That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause & nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers and Witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted Counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without whose unanimous Consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself.

9. That no Freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or desseized of his Freehold, Liberties, privileges or Franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his Life, Liberty or Property, but by the Law of the Land.

10. That every Freeman restrained of his Liberty is entitled to a remedy, to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such Remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.

11. That in Controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and man, the ancient Trial by Jury of Facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest Securities to the Rights of a Free people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

12. That every Freeman ought to find a certain Remedy, by recourse to the Laws, for all Injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or Character: He ought to obtain Right and Justice freely, without sale, compleatly and without Denial, promptly and without Delay; and that all Establishments or regulations contravening these Rights are oppressive and unjust.

13. That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.

14. That every Freeman has a Right to be secure from all unreasonable Searches and Seizures of his Person, his papers, and his property; all Warrants therefore to search suspected places, or to seize any Freeman, his Papers or property, without Information upon Oath (or Affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath) of legal and sufficient Cause, are grievous and Oppressive; and all General Warrants to search suspected Places, or to apprehend any suspected Person, without specially naming or describing the Place or Person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

15. That the People have a Right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common Good, or to instruct their Representatives, and that every Freeman has a right to petition or apply to the Legislature for redress of Grievances.

16. That the People have a right to Freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; that the Freedom of the Press is one of the great Bulwarks of Liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

18. That no Soldier in Time of Peace ought to be quartered in any House without the Consent of the Owner; and in Time of War, only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws direct.

19. That any Person religiously scrupulous of bearing Arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an Equivalent to employ another to bear Arms in his stead.

20. That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.
____________

That each State in the Union shall retain its Sovereignty, Freedom and Independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and Right which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the Congress of the United States.

That there shall be one Representative for every Thirty Thousand Persons according to the Enumeration or Census mentioned in the Constitution until the whole Number of representatives amounts to Two Hundred.

That Congress shall not exercise the Powers respecting the regulation of Elections, vested in them by the Fourth Section of the First Article of the Constitution, but in Cases when a State neglects or refuses to make the Regulations therein mentioned, or shall make Regulations subversive of the Rights of the People to a free and equal Representation in Congress agreeably to the Constitution, or shall be prevented from making Elections by Invasion or Rebellion; and in any of these Cases, such Powers shall be exercised by the Congress only until the Cause be removed.

That the Congress do not lay direct Taxes, nor Excises upon any Articles of the growth, or manufactured from the growth of any of the American States, but when the Monies arising from the Duties on Imports are insufficient for the public Exigencies; nor then until the Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to assess, levy and pay their respective Proportions of such requisitions according to the Enumeration or Census fixed in the Constitution, in such Way and Manner as the Legislature of the State shall judge best; and if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such States' proportion, together with Interest thereon, at the Rate of Six per Centum per Annum, from the Time of Payment prescribed in such requisition.

That the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be ineligible to, and incapable of holding any Office under the Authority of the United States, during the Time for which they shall respectively be elected.

* That there shall be a constitutional responsible Council, to assist in the Administration of Government, with the Power of chusing out of their own Body, a President, who in the case of the Death, Resignation, or Disability of the President of the United States, shall act, pro tempore, as Vice President instead of a Vice President elected in the Manner prescribed by the Constitution; and that the Power of making Treaties, appointing Ambassadors, other public Ministers or Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Courts, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution, and which shall be established by Law, be vested in the President of the United States with the Assistance of the Council so to be appointed. But all Treaties so made or entered into, shall be subject to the Revision of the Senate and House of Representatives for their Ratification. And no Commercial Treaty shall be ratified without the Consent of Two-Thirds of the members present in both Houses; nor shall any Treaty ceding, contracting, restraining or suspending the Territorial Rights or Claims of the United States, or any of them, or their or any of their Rights or Claims to fishing in the American Seas, or navigating the American Rivers be ratified without the Consent of Three-Fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses.

No Navigation Law, or Law for regulating Commerce, shall be passed without the Consent of Two-Thirds of the Members present in both Houses.

No Standing Army or Regular Troops shall be raised or kept up in Time of Peace without the Consent of Two-Thirds of the members of both Houses.

Neither the President, nor Vice President of the United States, nor any member of the Council, shall command the Army or Navy of the United States in person, without the Consent of Two-Thirds of the members of both Houses.

No Soldier shall be enlisted for a longer Term than four Years, except in Time of War, and then for no longer Term than the Continuance of the War.

No Mutiny Act shall be passed for any longer Term than Two years.

The President of the United States, or any other Officer acting under the Authority of the United States shall, upon Impeachment, be suspended from the Exercise of his Office during his Trial.
The Judges of the Federal Court shall be incapable of holding any other Office, or of receiving the Profits of any other Office or Emolument under the United States or any of them.

* This article not yet finally agreed upon by the Committee appointed to prepare the amendments. _____

[NOTE: The footnote refers to the committee in the Republican Society tasked with preparing amendments to present to the Virginia ratifying convention, as this Master Draft had been written at least 2 weeks before the Virginia convention appointed a committee to prepare amendments.]

Christian Reconstructionism


By John Sugg, an editor of Creative Loafing in an article covering a convention in Toccoa, Georgia of the Reconstructionist religious movement, a movement holding the belief that the world must come under Christian "dominion", as they define it, before the return of Christ for His millenial reign. This article outlines the ideas and actions reconstructionists propose to implement to facilitate that return.

"Traditional Christian theology teaches that history will muddle along until Jesus’ Second Coming. That teaching is tough to turn into a political movement. Reconstruc­tionists preach that the nation and the world must come under Christian “dom­in­ion” (as they define it) before Christ’s return – a wonderful theology to promote global conquest. At a convention in Toccoa, Georgia, Gary North, a leader in Reconstructionism re-iterated the beliefs of the Reconstructionists:

• The First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from imposing a national religion, but states should be free to foster a religious creed. (Several states did that during the colonial period and the nation’s early days, a model the Reconstructionists want to emulate.)

• The Founding Fathers intended to protect only the liberties of the established ultra-conservative denominations of that time. Expanding the list to include “liberal” Protestant denominations, much less Catholics, Jews and (gasp!) atheists, is a corruption of the Founders’ intent.

• Six-day, “young earth” creationism is the only acceptable doctrine for Christians. Even “intelligent design” or “old earth” creationism are compromises with evil secularism.

• Public education is satanic and must be destroyed.

Education earned the most vitriol at the conference. Effusing that the Reli­gi­ous Right has captured politics and much of the media, North proclaimed: “The only thing they (secularists) have still got a grip on is the university system.” Academic doctorates, he contended, are a conspiracy fomented by the Rocke­feller family. All academic programs (except, he said, engineering) are now dominated by secularists and Darwinists.

“Marxists in the English departments!” he ranted. “Close every public school in America!”

Among North’s most quoted writings was this ditty from 1982: “[W]e must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation…which...(will) deny religious liberty to the enemies of God.” quote edited for clarification.

Titus followed that party line when he proclaimed that the First Amendment is limited to guaranteeing “the right to criticize the government,” but “free expression is not in the Constitution.” When I asked him if blasphemy – castigating religion – was protected, he shook his head.

Like North, Titus sees public education as decidedly satanic. Also, welfare. He contended the Founding Fathers – and Americans today – owe their “first duties to God. It’s not just worship. It’s education…welfare to the poor. Welfare belongs exclusively to God. Why do schools fail? They’re trying to do the business of God. Medicaid goes. Edu­cation goes. The church gets back to doing what it should do.”

And what should the church be doing? According to these self-appointed arbiters of God’s will, running our lives. And stoning those who disagree.

At the Toccoa conference, DeMar org­anized several debates – and he commendably invited articulate opponents of his creed.

One was Ed Buckner, a retired Geor­gia State University professor, unabash­ed atheist and a member of the Atlanta Freethought Society. He debated Bill Federer, who makes a living trying to prove America’s founders intended this to be a Christian nation.

Buckner offered to concede the debate if Federer could disprove any one of four points: Americans don’t agree on religion, human judgment is imperfect, religious truth can’t be determined by votes or force and freedom is worth protecting. Federer ran from the challenge, and instead offered a litany of historic quotes showing that most of America’s founders believed in God.

Federer never got the point that if, as he argued, government should endorse his faith today, tomorrow officials might decide to ban his beliefs.

The other debate featured University of Georgia biologist Mark Farmer versus Australian “young earth” creationist Carl Wieland. Farmer, religious himself, tried to explain that no evidence had ever damaged evolutionary theory – at best, creationists point to gaps in knowledge.

“Yes, we don’t know the answers to everything,” Farmer told me. “That’s what science is all about, finding answers.”

It would be easy to dismiss the Reconstructionists as the lunatic fringe, no more worrisome than the remnants of the Prohibition Party. But, in fact, they have rather extraordinary entrée and influence with top-tier Religious Right leaders and institutions.

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family is now selling DeMar’s book, America’s Christian Heritage. Dobson himself has a warm relationship with many in the movement, and he has admitted voting for Reconstructionist presidential candidate Howard Phillips in 1996.

TV preacher Robertson has mentioned reading North’s writings, and he has hired Reconstructionists as professors at Regent University. Jerry Falwell em­ploys Reconstructionists to teach at Liberty Uni­­versity. Roger Schultz, the chair of Liberty’s History Department, writes regularly for Faith for all of Life, the leading Reconstructionist journal.

Southern Baptist Bruce N. Shortt is aggressively pushing his denomination to officially repudiate public education and call on Southern Baptists to withdraw their children from public schools. Shortt’s vicious book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools, was published by the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foun­da­tion.

There are some theological differences between the Religious Right’s generals and the Reconstructionists., but, in short, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and the Southern Baptist Convention (the nation’s largest Protestant denomination) may not agree with everything the Re­constructionists advocate, but they sure don’t seem to mind hanging out with this openly theocratic, anti-democratic crowd.

It’s enough for Americans who be­lieve in personal freedom and religious liberty to get worried about – before the first stones start flying."

John Sugg is senior editor of Creative Loafing Newspapers, which owns alternative newsweeklies in Atlanta, Charlotte, Tampa and Sarasota. He was the recipient of the 2005 Society of Professional Journalists “Green Eyeshade” award for serious commentary, and he has won more than 30 other significant awards.

Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom


In 1786 on January 16, the Virginia Assembly passed Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson had tried to get it passed once, but failed.

In the fall of 1785, Jefferson was Ambassador to France, and James Madison propelled the bill to passage in response to a bill by Patrick Henry that would have forced Virginians to support Christian ministers with their tax dollars.


The Jefferson bill initiated societal change away from established churches toward religious freedom and became the model for the first amendment religion clauses, creating the the trend that would sweep throughout the states, disestablishing all state religions, until finally in 1833, when the last one, Massachusetts, after almost two hundred years, acquiesed, they all were gone.



The full text of Jefferson's statute:

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

CEO Pay: Money for Nothing? By Dean Baker
Monday 14 January 2008

One of the standard yearend rituals is to assess the stock market's performance for the year. Many people noted the Dow Jones index rose a respectable 7.5 percent in 2007. Before anyone celebrates this modest achievement, it is important to remember the Dow includes just 30 blue chip stocks. The much broader S&P 500 index rose by just 3.5 percent, slightly less than the rate of inflation in 2007. In other words, the real return for most stockholders was roughly equal to what their stock paid out in dividends, not a terribly good story.

In fact, poor stock returns are not a new phenomenon. If we go back ten years, we find the S&P 500 has risen by a cumulative total of 52.6 percent from December 1997 to December 2007. After adjusting for inflation, the increase was 17.3 percent, which translates into real growth of just 1.6 percent a year. Add in a dividend yield of approximately the same size, and we get that the average real return on stocks over the last decade has been 3.2 percent, a bit lower than the yield that was available on inflation-indexed government bonds ten years ago.

This is rather striking. It is unlikely many people invested in stock for the sort of return that is typically associated with government bonds, which are much less risky. At least for the last decade, stockholders have not been rewarded for taking this risk.

This brings us to the topic of CEO pay. We saw an explosion in CEO pay that began in the eighties and has continued into the current decade. While the ratio of the pay of CEOs to an average worker had been around 30 to 1 in the sixties and seventies, by the end of the eighties it stood at more than 70 to 1. It crossed 100 to 1 in the early nineties. The ratio has been perched between 200 to 1 and 300 to 1 since the late nineties, with CEOs at major companies routinely pulling down pay packages in the tens of millions, and running into the hundreds of millions in good years.

This explosion of pay at the top was justified, by many economists, based on the returns CEOs produced for shareholders. The argument was that even these incredibly high salaries still were just a small fraction of the value the CEOs generated, so their pay was money well spent. These exorbitant salaries gave the CEOs the necessary incentive to produce extraordinary returns.

While this argument may never have been terribly compelling (it would have been hard to keep a company's stock prices from rising in the nineties bubble), it clearly is not true today. The typical CEO is not producing great returns for shareholders. The average return is weak, and in many cases shareholders are incurring loses due to CEO mismanagement. Even in the disaster stories, the CEOs still seem to get extraordinary pay packages.

The poster child for this new trend is Robert Nardelli. In five years as CEO at Home Depot, he lost shareholders 40 percent of the stock's value, more than $25 billion. When he was eventually pushed out the door, he walked away with a compensation package worth more than $200 million. Call it "pay for nonperformance."

In the fifties and sixties, it was common to think of corporations as bodies that served a variety of stakeholders. In addition to shareholders, corporations were also seen as having responsibilities to their workers, to the communities in which they were located, to their consumers, and even the larger society. This diverse group of stakeholders sometimes meant that a company should sacrifice short-term profit maximization in order to meet some broader goal.

In the eighties, we got the shareholder revolution, which said corporate management should focus simply on maximizing shareholder value. If this meant mass layoffs of workers or abandoning communities where a company had deep roots, so be it.

As a result of the shareholder revolution, the range of constituencies the corporation was expected to serve was drastically narrowed. Concerns for workers, communities, and the larger society were jettisoned, with shareholder value being the only true concern for the corporation and the CEOs that run them. This single-minded concern for profit maximization and shareholder value was supposed to be best for society in the long run.

It turns out, the range of constituencies has been narrowed even further than we realized. With recent evidence on returns, it doesn't look like shareholders fit in the equation anymore. At least the CEOs are still doing well.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (www.conservativenannystate.org).

More Attempts at Chipping Away...

 

On Monday 14 January 2008 House Resolution 888, sponsored by Congressman Randy Forbes...has in it a proclamation that states, "Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of 'Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they 'desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported 'into the different ports of the States of the Union'."

'...The resolution, which was first reported on Talk2Action by Chris Rodda, author of the book "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History," and the senior research director at the government watchdog organization The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), was introduced by Forbes on December 18, the last day Congress was in session before lawmakers left for their winter break.

Rodda first discovered the resolution after researching Congress's legislative web site for work she has been doing on behalf of MRFF.

"House Resolution 888," said Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of MRFF, a nonprofit watchdog group which aims a close eye on the military to ensure it abides by the law mandating the separation between church and state, "...is a myriad of tortured and deliberate historical fictions, fused by it's Congressional-member drafters into a ....Christian exceptionalism and triumphalism, and clearly illuminate its private sector and legislative sponsors' desire to spare absolutely no effort to complete the transformation of our country into "The United Christian States of America."

Weinstein was a former White House counsel during the Reagan administration, former general counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and a former Air Force Judge Advocate General.

In House Resolution 888, Rodda says Forbes has grossly misrepresented and distorted the historical record he references in the 75 proclamation of H. Res 888.

"This resolution, which purports to promote 'education on America's history of religious faith,' is packed with the same American history errors found on the Christian nationalist websites, and in the books of pseudo-historians like David Barton," Rodda wrote on the Talk2Action web site.

"It lists a total of seventy-five 'Whereas,' leading up to four resolves, the third of which is particularly disturbing - that the U.S. House of Representatives 'rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources,' which is a considerable travesty considering that most of the 'history' this resolve aims to promote in our public buildings and schools IS NOT REAL!"

One example, says Rodda, is the proclamation by Forbes that "Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be 'a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that the United States in Congress assembled ... recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States."

"Congress did not 'pursue a plan to print' this Bible, as Mr. Forbes claims, nor did they 'approve the production,' Rodda said.

"Robert Aitken was already printing his Bibles as of January 21, 1781 when he petitioned Congress. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate. The words 'a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools' are taken from a letter written by Aitken, not the resolution of Congress."

Forbes did not respond to a request for comment.

Congressman Forbes is using the resolution to circumvent the The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which says Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.

Forbes has also introduced two bills, one that would protect the rights of lawmakers to express "their religious beliefs through public prayer by removing all establishment clause cases involving prayer by public officials from federal court jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of state courts." The other legislation Forbes introduced "would bar judges from awarding legal fees to groups that sue municipalities for violating the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion."

Forbes and two other congressmen held up passage of the defense budget for several weeks over the removal of a military chaplain prayer provision that sought to authorize chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ at military invocations.

The guidelines, rewritten in 2005 after Weinstein exposed the religious intolerance and anti-Semitism carried out by fundamentalist officers, staff and cadets at the AIr Force Academy in Colorado Springs against those at the academy who refused to accept Jesus Christ as "their personal Lord and savior". Weinstein wrote about the issue in

his book "With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup in America's Military."

Forbes, along with congressmen Todd Akin of Missouri, and Walter Jones of North Carolina, threatened to block passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 unless Congress passed the bill with their proposal intact and the proposal was eventually withdrawn, and in exchange, Forbes and his colleagues were handed a deal abrogating the Air Force and Navy guidelines on religious expression, essentially giving evangelical military chaplains a loophole to proselytize, an issue Weinstein says he intends to fight in court.

Last year, MRFF filed a lawsuit in federal court against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and US Army Maj. Freddy Welborn, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, alleges Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Combat Operations Base Speicher, Iraq, had his First Amendment rights violated when Welborn threatened to retaliate against Hall and block his reenlistment in the Army because of Hall's atheist beliefs."

Church historian Gary Dorrian has a commentary about Mitt Romney's speech -- and the political ripples since -- over at the web site of Union Theological Seminary.

"When Kennedy ran for the presidency in 1960, the Catholic Church was still officially opposed to religious freedom. Kennedy's adviser on the church and state issue was American Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, who approved the Houston speech a few hours before it was delivered. But Murray's views on this subject, while important to Kennedy's campaign, were contrary to church doctrine. In 1955 the Vatican had silenced Murray on this subject, forbidding him to write about religious freedom. In 1965 Murray's view prevailed at Vatican Council II, as the church changed its teaching on religious freedom. Had Kennedy allowed himself to be drawn into a discussion of Catholic doctrine in 1960, it would not have gone well.

Romney keenly understands that the same thing is true in his case, only more so; thus he ruled out option two. The option that he took was the generic one of devoting an entire speech to the issue while saying as little as possible. He stood up for his Mormon faith without saying what it was. With only slight tweaks he gave a generic religion-in-public speech that any Republican or Democratic candidate might have delivered. The only section with an edge was his shot at "the religion of secularism."

In Romney's telling, the difference between the 1960s and today on this subject is that secularism has grown powerful. Secular types are trying to strip the public sphere of "any acknowledgment of God," he warns. However, that is far from the whole story. In 1967 George Romney could run for president without having to defend or even mention his Mormon religion. Mitt Romney surely realizes that something has gone wrong in American politics and culture since then, even as he does a delicate dance with the very movement that changed the rules and made his theology the issue. If Romney thinks he has put that issue to rest, he has a rude surprise coming."