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."

What Is the Purpose of Life on Earth?

Man was created in the image of God and placed on this earth to experience existence between the pre-mortal life and post-mortal life as a part of the evolution of his eternal being. Mortal life is a test to see if we'll obey, not only the lower laws to which mortals are born, but a test to see if we'll obey, as they are learned, the higher, eternal laws, which God, Himself, obeys. Only by obeying both the lower and the higher laws can we return to Him in the postmortal life. The mission of each person born in mortality is the search for the way to return to life in the eternal worlds from whence we came, a process of continuous evolution in always becoming. Accomplishing that goal can only be achieved by learning that we were begotten by God, the Father of our spirits, by learning the laws which govern that process of return and by adhering to them once they are known. There is no other way.

In the process of learning and applying those laws in this sojourn on earth, one may fall short of knowledge and will, and have to take a step back, re-assess the situation to once again proceed forward. Only by faith in God that He will provide guidance for us to recover and continue to proceed forward can we each one evolve to become that which He desires for us and we desire for ourselves and for all who have lived in mortality, now live, and will come to live. We agreed with this plan and we voted for it by acclamation as intelligent entities in our pre-mortal life. We agreed to move to this earth, acquire a mortal body, and live the laws we obeyed in the previous plane of our existance. We agreed that we would allow a veil to fall between us and our previous life, so that we could live by faith for humility's sake. For it is only when we are humble are we able to learn.

President Spencer W. Kimball (1895-1995) tells it this way:

“Our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God. By eating the forbidden fruit, they became mortal. Consequently, they and all of their descendants became subject to both mortal and spiritual death (mortal death, the separation of body and spirit; and spiritual death, the separation of the spirit from the presence of God and death as pertaining to the things of the spirit).

“In order for Adam to regain his original state (to be in the presence of God), an atonement for this disobedience was necessary. In God’s divine plan, provision was made for a redeemer to break the bonds of death and, through the resurrection, make possible the reunion of the spirits and bodies of all persons who had dwelt on earth. “Jesus of Nazareth was the one who, before the world was created, was chosen to come to earth to perform this service, to conquer mortal death” (“The True Way of Life and Salvation,” Ensign, May 1978, 6).

No Jobs for the New Economy (or the Old)

08 January 2008

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in Reagan Administration

December did not bring Americans any jobs. To the contrary, the private sector lost 13,000 jobs from the previous month.

If December is a harbinger of the new year, it is going to be a bad one. The past year, hailed by Republican propagandists and "free trade" economists as proof of globalism's benefit to Americans, was dismal. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' nonfarm payroll data, the US "super economy" created a miserable 1,054,000 net new jobs during 2007.

This is not enough to keep up with population growth--even at the rate discouraged Americans, unable to find jobs, are dropping out of the work force--thus the rise in the unemployment rate to 5%.

During the past year, US goods producing industries, continuing a long trend, lost 374,000 jobs.

But making things was the "old economy." The "new economy" provides services. Last year 1,428,000 private sector service jobs were created.

Are the "free trade" propagandists correct that these service jobs, which are our future, are high-end jobs in research and development, innovation, venture capitalism, information technology, high finance, and science and engineering where the US allegedly has such a shortage of scientists and engineers that it must import them from abroad on work visas?

Not according to the official job statistics.

What occupations provided the 1.4 million service jobs in 2007?

Waitresses and bartenders accounted for 304,200, or 21% of the new service jobs last year and 29% of the net new jobs.

Health care and social assistance accounted for 478,400, or 33% of the new service jobs and 45% of the net new jobs. Ambulatory health care and hospitals accounted for the lion's share of these jobs.

Professional and business services accounted for 314,000, or 22% of the new service jobs and 30% of the net new jobs.

Are these professional and business service jobs the high-end jobs of which "free traders" speak? Decide for yourself.

Services to buildings and dwellings account for 53,600 of the jobs. Accounting and bookkeeping services account for 60,500 of the jobs. Architectural and engineering services account for 54,700 of the jobs. Computer systems design and related services account for 70,400 of the jobs. Management consultants account for 88,400 of the jobs.

There were more jobs for hospital orderlies than for architects and engineers. Waitresses and bartenders accounted for as many of last year's new jobs as the entirety of professional and business services.

Wholesale and retail trade, transportation, and utilities accounted for 181,000 of 2007's new jobs.

Where are the rest of the new jobs? There are a few scattered among arts, entertainment, and recreation, repair and maintenance, personal and laundry services, and membership associations and organizations.

That's it.

Keep in mind that the loss of 374,000 goods producing jobs must be subtracted from the 1,428,000 new service jobs to arrive at the net job gain figure.

The new service jobs account for more than 100% of the net new jobs.

Keep in mind, too, that many of the new jobs are not filled by American citizens.

Many of the engineering and science jobs were filled by foreigners brought in on work visas. Indians and others from abroad can be hired to work in the US for one-third less. The engineering and science jobs that are offshored are paid as little as one-fifth of the US salary. Even foreign nurses are brought in on work visas. No one knows how many of the hospital orderlies are illegals.

What a super new economy Americans have! US job growth has a distinctly third world flavor.

A very small percentage of 2007's new jobs required a college education. Since there are so few jobs for university graduates, how is "education the answer"?

Where is the benefit to Americans of offshoring? The answer is that the benefit is confined to a few highly paid executives who receive multi-million dollar bonuses for increasing profits by offshoring jobs. The rest of the big money went to Wall Street manipulators who sold trusting people subprime derivatives.

"Free traders" will assert that the benefit is in low Wal-Mart prices. But the prices are low only because China keeps its currency pegged to the dollar. Thus, the Chinese currency value falls with the dollar. The peg will not continue forever. The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the Euro during the years of 2001 - 2007. Already China is having to adjust the peg. When the peg goes, Wal-Mart shoppers will think they are in Neiman Marcus.

Just as Americans have been betrayed by "their" leaders in government at all levels, they have been betrayed by business "leaders" on Wall Street and in the corporations. US government and business elites have proven themselves to be Americans' worst enemies.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Free Trade or Fair Trade?

Site of Tract of Land at Manakin Town, Virginia For French Refugees Who Fled Religous Persecution in France in 17th Century

The Evangelical Rebellion
Dec 23, 2007
By Chris Hedges

The rise of Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate represents a seismic shift in the tactics, ideology and direction of the radical Christian right. Huckabee may stumble and falter in later primaries, but his right-wing Christian populism is here to stay. Huckabee represents a new and potent force in American politics, and the neocons and corporate elite, who once viewed the yahoos of the Christian right as the useful idiots, are now confronted with the fact that they themselves are the ones who have been taken for a ride. Members of the Christian right, recruited into the Republican Party and manipulated to vote against their own interests around the issues of abortion and family values, are in rebellion. They are taking the party into new, uncharted territory. And they presage, especially with looming economic turmoil, the rise of a mass movement that could demolish what is left of American democracy and set the stage for a Christian fascism.

The corporate establishment, whose plundering of the country created fertile ground for a radical, right-wing backlash, is sounding the alarm bells. It is scrambling to bolster Mitt Romney, who, like Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton, will continue to slash and burn on behalf of corporate profits. Columnist George Will called Huckabee’s populism “a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs.” He wrote that Huckabee’s candidacy “broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote that “like [Howard] Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.”

Huckabee spoke of this revolt on the “Today” show. “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican Party,” he said. “They wanted us to be a part of it. And then one day one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh, now they’re serious.’ They [evangelicals] don’t want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be a part of the discussion.”

George Bush is a happy stooge of his corporate handlers. He blithely enriches the oligarchy, defends a war that is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history and callously denies medical benefits to children. Huckabee is different. He has tapped into the rage and fury of the working class, dispossessed and abandoned by the mainstream Democrats and Republicans. And he refuses to make the ideology of the Christian right, with its dark contempt for democratic traditions and intolerance of nonbelievers, a handmaiden of the corporate establishment. This makes him a much more lethal and radical political force.

The Christian right is the most potent and dangerous mass movement in American history. It has been controlled and led, until now, by those who submit to the demands of the corporate state. But the grass roots are tired of being taken for rubes. They are tired of candidates, like Bush or Bill Clinton, who roll out the same clichés about working men and women every four years and then spend their terms enriching their corporate backers. The majority of American citizens have spent the last two decades watching their government services and benefits vanish. They have seen their jobs go overseas and are watching as their communities crumble and their houses are foreclosed. It is their kids who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old guard in the Christian right, the Pat Robertsons, who used their pulpits to deliver the votes of naive followers to the corporatists, is a spent force. Huckabee’s Christian populism represents the maturation of the movement. It signals the rise of a truly radical, even revolutionary force in American politics, of which Huckabee may be one of the tamer and less frightening examples.

Hints of Huckabee’s bizarre worldview seep out now and then. Bob Vander Plaats, Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager, for example, when asked about his candidate’s lack of foreign policy experience, told MSNBC: “Well, I think Gov. Huckabee has a lot of resources that he goes to on national security matters. Here’s a guy, a former pastor, who understands a theological nature of this war as we’re fighting a radical religion in Islam.”

Robert Novak noted that Huckabee held a fundraiser last week at the Houston home of Dr. Steven Hotze. As Novak wrote, Hotze is “a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.”

Huckabee has close ties with the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist branch of the Christian right. The Dominionist movement, which seeks to cloak itself in the mantle of the Christian faith and American patriotism, is small in numbers but influential. It departs from traditional evangelicalism. It seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. It shares many prominent features with classical fascist movements, at least as such movements are defined by the scholar Robert O. Paxton, who sees fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cultures of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Dominionism, born out of Christian Reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians. It also has, like fascist movements, an ill-defined and shifting set of beliefs, some of which contradict each other. Paxton argues that the best way to understand authentic fascist movements, which he says exist in all societies, including democracies, is to focus not on what they say but on how they act, for, as he writes, some of the ideas that underlie fascist movements “remain unstated and implicit in fascist public language” and “many of them belong more to the realm of visceral feelings than to the realm of reasoned propositions.”

Dominionism teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. A decades-long refusal by most American fundamentalists to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and, eventually, over the Earth itself. Dominionism preaches that Jesus has called on Christians to actively build the kingdom of God on Earth. America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan. Under Christian dominion, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the Ten Commandments form the basis of our legal system, in which creationism and “Christian values” form the basis of our educational system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the work force to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship.

Baptist minister Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America and a self-described “Christocrat,” who attended the Texas fundraiser, has endorsed Huckabee. Scarborough, along with holding other bizarre stances, opposes the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine on grounds that it interferes with God’s punishment of sexual license. And Huckabee, who once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure, comes out of this frightening mold. He justified his call to quarantine those with AIDS because they could “pose a dangerous public health risk.”

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,” Huckabee wrote. “It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”

Huckabee has publicly backed off from this extreme position, but he remains deeply hostile to gays. He has used wit and humor to deflect reporters from his radical views about marriage, abortion, damnation, biblical law, creationism and the holy war he believes we are fighting with Islam. But his stances represent a huge step, should they ever become policy, toward a theocratic state and the death of our open society. In the end, however, I do not blame Huckabee or the tens of millions of hapless Christians—40 percent of the Republican electorate—who hear his words and rejoice. I blame the corporate state, those who thought they could disempower and abuse the working class, rape the country, build a rapacious oligarchy and never pay a political price.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”

Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists .... Jefferson and Adams
By David IgnatiusThursday, December 27, 2007; A17

A bracing text for this Christmas week is the famous correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their letters are a reminder that the Founders were men of the Enlightenment -- supreme rationalists who would have found the religiosity of much of our modern political life quite abhorrent.

It's not that these men didn't have religious beliefs: They were, to their deaths, passionate seekers of truth, metaphysical as well as physical. It's that their beliefs didn't fit into pious cubbyholes. Indeed, the deist Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the New Testament to create his "Jefferson Bible," or, formally, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which cut out the parts he regarded as supernatural or misinterpreted by the Gospel writers. It's useful to examine the musings of these American rationalists in this political season when religion has been a prominent topic.

Politicians and commentators have suggested that for the Founders, the very idea of freedom was God-given -- or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, that human beings are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Yet this famous passage begins with a distillation of the Enlightenment's celebration of human reason: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

My Christmastime reading of the Adams-Jefferson letters was prompted by this year's most interesting political speech -- Mitt Romney's Dec. 6 speech on "Faith in America." It was a fine evocation of our twin heritage of religion and religious freedom, until he got to this ritual denunciation of the bogeymen known as secularists.

"They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism."

Anyone who reads Adams and Jefferson -- or for that matter, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or other voices of the American Enlightenment -- can make their own judgment about what the Founders would say about secularism. My guess is that their response would be something like: "That is bunkum...."

Many of the Founders liked to speak of the "God of Nature," notes Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oregon. Adams used this term in a June 20, 1815, letter to Jefferson: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by His own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" Adams mistrusted priests and kings, but he was also skeptical of the revolutionary philosophers who had overthrown them in France. He spent his life looking for a middle ground.

Jefferson spoke in a May 5, 1817, letter of "true religion" as based on "moral precepts, innate in man," and the "sublime doctrine of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth." He contrasted this true faith with "sectarian dogmas." If the sectarian version prevailed, warned Jefferson, then he might agree with Adams's speculation that "this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

Before leaving these men and their ruminations on man and God in what one editor of the letters called "an epistolary duet," let us recall this caustic Nov. 4, 1816, missive from Adams: "We have now, it seems, a national Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible through all nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious subscriptions to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity than to propagate those corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America?"

The Founders certainly believed in God, but for most of them, their faith was a deeply private matter, as Jefferson put it in a Jan. 11, 1817, letter, a subject "known to my God and myself alone." Indeed, they found loud, public displays of religiosity a profanation of this inner and spiritual practice of religion. Adams, the more conventionally "religious" of the two, insisted in a Sept. 14, 1813, letter that there is "but one being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it."

One theme in this year's political campaign has been whether the United States will move from the faith-based policies the Bush administration has celebrated to a more rationalist and secular approach.

In this debate, religious conservatives like to stress their connection to the Founders and to the republic's birth as "one nation under God."

But a rereading of the Adams-Jefferson letters is a reminder that in this debate, the Founders -- as men of the Enlightenment -- would surely have sided with the party of Reason.

Romney and The Bill of Rights

Brigham Young, the second President and Prophet of the LDS Church, taught the belief that it is the right of "...every class of worshipers [to be] most strictly protected in their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others."

Last week in the second part of Romney's religion speech, he displayed a vastly limited knowledge of history, most of all, surprisingly, a limited knowledge of the history of the faith to which he adheres, and not unsurprisingly, the mission that many of the Fundamentalist Evangelicals have for the people of the United States: the dismantling of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, a central tenant of their mission; but to give Romney benefit of the doubt, it is probable that he may not know that; but if he does, indeed, have some idea of that part of their mission, then he demonstrates a lack of perception of long term probabilities of cause and effect.

While he tells us in the first part of last week's speech that he believes in the Separation of Church and State, in the second part his words show that he would undermind the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Romney made it clear that he has a limited understanding of the first amendment of the United States Constitution that not only protects one's right to believe and practice a religion - which he tells us he believes - but that he has a very limited understanding of the whole Bill of Rights, having previously told us, in the presidential candidates debate in May 2007, that habeas corpus was not a right of prisoners held without charges at the United States' military base at Guantanamo when he said:

".....I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them at Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers that they'd get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people say that we should close Guantanamo, my view is: We outta double Guantanamo." He then finished: "Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used." .

in which he further demonstrated his lack of knowledge of Brigham Young's municipal rights, the other part of the First Amendment, as well, as the teachings in the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church's Articles of Faith.

The LDS Church's 12th Article of Faith instructs its members to obey, honor and sustain the law. Advocating the denial of basic legal rights is in direct contradiction to this article and the 13th Article teaches LDS members to be benevolent, virtuous and good to all men. How "enhanced interrogation techniques" fits into being benevolent, virtuous, or good, which Article of Faith implies justice, he does not explain. Both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, Christ taught:

"And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you. That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven."

In the LDS book of Doctrine and Covenants, Christ says:

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."

One would think that "all mankind" means there are no exceptions.

In the Book of Mormon, in Alma, Chapter 14, when Alma and Amulek were in Zarahemla, they were smittened and imprisioned and their accusers "sought to put them away privily", intending to prevent them a hearing before the court and judges of the law, ie: deny them of their municipal rights of habeas corpus. That, is as all Mormons should know, is exactly what happened to Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum. And to put anyone "away privily" could mean any number of things including to disappear them in whatsoever manner their accusers pleased.

Then, finally, in the Book of Alma, Chapter 30, verses 7-10, there was

"no law against a man's belief, for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law.... for thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye shall serve. Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather if he believed in God, it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him."

The only laws on the books in the nation of Zarahemla were laws against crimes of person and property, which is defined in verse 11 of Alma Chapter 30,

"For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds."

Romney, then, seems to only not understand the laws of the United States and righteous laws throughout the world, he seems to not understand, or know that much of the history of Joseph Smith, after the restoration of the gospel, was in violation the Bill of RIghts, not only the right of him and the members of the LDS church to worship as they saw fit, but a continued violation of their municipal rights as we see in the above quotes from scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church.

At no time does Mormon belief support anything that would take away the freedom of the individual to decide for himself how to think and proceed on any matter, except for violations of the rights of persons and property of another, which are crimes. The issues that currently divide the present population including the right to life, gay marriage, the current war for hegemony over the world's natural resources for power and gain, and all other issues of any kind that have polarized the people of this country, including the right to freely worship who, what, and where they please or not do so, if they so please, Romney, in trying to make common cause with the various sects of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, forsakes that which he professes that which is not negotiable -- the teachings of his faith.

His speech, directed at a small population, told them, as well as the population at large, that he shares their position to dismantle the First Amendment and the whole of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, by appointing judges inclined to adhere to idealogical positions, rather than rule of law. He saw secularism as "a new religion in America" -- in violation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon that man also has the right to be protected in not believing in God -- and his statement on secularism implies a desire for the state to address this concern; but how to address it, he did not say. Appointing judges who would do away with anything that bespeaks of no belief in God in violation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and LDS Church doctrine?

The Constitution does not mention God any place in it.  It is a completely secular document, and it only mentions religion in the negative sense. Romney says that he is sympathetic to those who would place some religious symbols and religious texts in taxpayer funded facilities, which would of course include the Ten Commandments. Which version of four versions of the Ten Commandments would he advocate? The Old Testament? The Catholic Vulgate? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Which of the religious symbols would he exclude? Islam has none, so there would be no decision there to make there, since Moslems believe that all religious symbols are forms of idolatry, and, indeed, a former President of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, said - paraphrasing - that God brought forth Mohammed to rid the world of idolatry, so no need to square that one. Such a discussion presents a serious delemma for any nation when the rule law runs into the wall of a religious culture.

Romney praised America's "symphony of faith" while failing to utter a single word about the millions of American citizens who do not kneel "in prayer to the Almighty."   What of the Buddhists, the Hindi, Sikkhs, the Hottentots, the tribal religions and other lesser known religions and practices whose adherents have migrated to the US? This was no oversight, as some commentators have speculated; it was an expression of ideology. Mitt Romney's America is a country defined by its Christian majority and will tolerate non-believers, only at a price: the price of exclusion from the nation's presumed theological identity.

In his eagerness to champion the Fundamentalist Evangelical tendentious views of American history and culture in his campaign to be president, Romney has opened a can of worms and those worms will have their say.  If he continues, he will have boxed himself in and have no way out and he will have then opened up the cherished beliefs and practices of millions of people to ridicule and disparagment by whomever can obtain an audience.

Religion is a seriously private concern and the First Amendment protects everyone, as Brigham Young said, in their privileges. The common ground for all people in the United States is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Confuscian, or Buddhists' or Hindi, or any other religious tenet or belief; it is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. We put in peril all beliefs and practices that do not violate the person or property of another when we do not support the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.

A Coherent View of the Founding of the United States

Political professor of political science University of Chicago writes:

“….reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.

That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a "Christian Nation," and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.

To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws.

They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity. Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as "unintelligible." He believed in a deity who "delights" in man's "pursuit of happiness." He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.

Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus' teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of "corruptors," such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as "nonsense," "abracadabra" and "a deliria of crazy imaginations." He referred to Christianity as "our peculiar superstition" and maintained that "ridicule" was the only rational response to the "unintelligible propositions" of traditional Christianity.

John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, "Be just and good." As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that "the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus' divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no "degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation."

Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that "the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion," because it "is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason." Paine explained that deism's creed "is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man" and "it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation." Paine dismissed Christianity as "a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." In Paine's view, traditional Christianity had "served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and "politically incorrect" to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that -- a fable.

It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," the "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence," all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.

The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not "the command of God," but "We the People," the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government "according to the will of God" but to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.

The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring "faith-based" initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney's Mormonism - as long as he keeps it out of our government.

.... Professor at University of Chicago