# Seperation of Church and State ... the Jefferson letters



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I was just doing a little noodling on the puter and stumbled onto this stuff ... many believe it to be the Genesis of what many use today as a basis for this argument.

It's simply a letter sent to Thomas Jefferson .... after his inaguration as President ... from a Baptist Church and then his well thought out response ... Jefferson went to some fairly great lengths to be certain his response stayed within the bounds of his position and the Constitution.

I'm not trying to imply anything ... one way ... or the other ... but found this interesting.

Read ON .............................

The Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson

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

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of

Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,

Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge

Ephraim Robbins

Stephen S. Nelson

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

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

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

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

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building *a wall of separation between Church & State*. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

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

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed it does prevent a state religion from being established. It also keeps religion out of the government to prevent the former from happening.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DecoyDummy

That is indeed the genesis of the idea of separation of church and state. It is however not in the constitution, simply in a letter, and a good idea. He was afraid that government would get it's nose into religion and declare a state religion.
Those that misconstrue it as religion can not be involved with government are clearly anti religious. It would take someone with little understanding to not know what the intent was. To state otherwise is simply dishonest and an attempt to mislead the simple minded.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Those that misconstrue it as religion can not be involved with government are clearly anti religious.


So it is proper to keep the government out of religion, but it is anti religious to do the opposite. How does this logic work?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are no people stupid enough not to understand it. Although there are many that do understand and deny it anyway, because religion contradicts their perverted lifestyle. Not saying this fits anyone here, but that is the heart of it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So it is logical because... it is logical. Didn't anyone ever tell you to not use circular definitions?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Those that misconstrue it as religion can not be involved with government are clearly anti religious.
> 
> 
> So it is proper to keep the government out of religion, but it is anti religious to do the opposite. How does this logic work?


I agree with MT on this one if he is implying that keeping gvmt out of religion and religion out of gvmt is the right way to go. The seperation wall should go both ways.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Ryan


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed. One cannot state that it works one way and not the other simply because it supports their piety.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ben Elli

My point to begin with is separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It is easy to keep government out of church, but impossible to keep religion out of government. It is impossible because you and I have a voice in government as does every citizen. Most people derive their sense of morals from their religious believes, and vote based on those beliefs. To say they can not do this violates their civil rights. It is religion that had the most influence on our constitution and bill of rights. 
I have a copy of the constitution with bill of rights in my home. I am looking at it right now and the 1st amendment is :

Article I.
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.

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere is there separation of church and state in the constitution. Furthermore there is no way to keep religion or other personal beliefs from influencing government. The idea is like a permeable membrane, not like a stone wall.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It seems rather obvious however that if one does not keep religion out of government, the government will not be kept out of religion.



> The idea is like a permeable membrane, not like a stone wall.


Mr. Jefferson disagrees.



> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


It seems to me that this is the point right here...

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - No govt religion, no problem here.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," - Seems to me that all those atheists and other non-believers are ignoring this part of the whole supporting argument. Jefferson did not want laws against practicing religion, like a moment of silence at the start of a school day, or maybe a chaplain leading troops in prayer before battle or any public prayer for that matter, removing the christmas play from school, the list goes on and on.

I see nothing here that says the government cannot support religion. The government cant pass laws regarding religion, but that has nothing to do with any of the afore mentioned things that those who scream "separation" are trying to rid us of.

And as was pointed out, this was all simply in a letter written by Jefferson, not something found in the constitution, so the entire argument is mute. If we turn up letters discussing the alleged relationship between Mr Jefferson and his slave, does that give adultery a legal standing?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good points Gun Owner, and further, government demanding that the judge down south take down the ten commandments is against the constitution. I think our supreme court violated the constitution. That's what you get when you have liberal judges legislating from the bench. Judges should follow the constitution period, no more, no less.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsman,
If I may add one thought.


> because religion contradicts their perverted lifestyle.


And they want the government to legitimize thier perversion......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," - Seems to me that all those atheists and other non-believers are ignoring this part of the whole supporting argument. Jefferson did not want laws against practicing religion, like a moment of silence at the start of a school day, or maybe a chaplain leading troops in prayer before battle or any public prayer for that matter, removing the christmas play from school, the list goes on and on.


Then why would he follow it with


> thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


?



> I see nothing here that says the government cannot support religion. The government cant pass laws regarding religion, but that has nothing to do with any of the afore mentioned things that those who scream "separation" are trying to rid us of.


Try looking at it this way, if you try to keep the government out of religion but don't keep religion out of the government, the former will happen due to the latter. The idea of it working one way and not the other is like trying to make a PB & J with the peanut butter touching the jelly, but the jelly not touching the peanut butter.



> And as was pointed out, this was all simply in a letter written by Jefferson, not something found in the constitution, so the entire argument is mute. If we turn up letters discussing the alleged relationship between Mr Jefferson and his slave, does that give adultery a legal standing?


No one claims that it is gospel, but because so many look back to the "Founding Fathers' intent", it is quite significant.



> Good points Gun Owner, and further, government demanding that the judge down south take down the ten commandments is against the constitution. I think our supreme court violated the constitution. That's what you get when you have liberal judges legislating from the bench. Judges should follow the constitution period, no more, no less.


Why does this violate the Constitution? Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and atheists all use said courthouse, why post documents from one religion? Would you mind if they posted scripture from the Quran in your local courthouse as well?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It violated the constitution because it stuck it's nose into religion. The judge has his rights, and if he wants to display his religious symbols at work so be it. If he is Muslim and wants to wear some type of religious symbol as he sits on the bench so be it.
Our constitution is based on Judeo Christian religious values. Religion permeates the constitution and was the guide for our founding fathers. 
I do see your point MT that if one religion dominates that they try to control others through government. But the first amendment prevents that. I see the modern attraction to separation of church and state being used as a tool to attack Christianity itself.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> It violated the constitution because it stuck it's nose into religion.


Quite the opposite, it was doing it's duty by keeping religion out of the government. The more religion you allow within the government the closer you are to a theocracy.



> Our constitution is based on Judeo Christian religious values.


So says you.



> But the first amendment prevents that.


Not for long with people such as yourself pushing for religion in government.



> I see the modern attraction to separation of church and state being used as a tool to attack Christianity itself.


Ah yes, the oppressed minority...


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

I found this topic in " Politics" . Perhaps we should have a subject topic " Religion " . 
My question is now - What " SECT " should enjoy empowerment over government ? Babtists ? Catholics ? Mormons ? or perhaps Muslims .

You know that you could not even begin to please a MAJORITY . There has been ground breaking legislation(s) passed in the last two or three years that do favor some , and it's not the Lutherens or the Latter Day Saints .


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Personally I don't understand what "Keeping Religion out of Government" even means.

The Dynamics of the Constitution itself are the means to prevent most any "Taking over of Government" without the consent of the people.

To me ... Both Lines ... mean essentially the same thing.

To NOT Impose Religion on folks ... and ... To allow free religious practice in a free Society ... seem to me to be almost redundent, on the surface at least ... they seem to me only to clarify one another.

To stand the statements on their head and try to make them mean something more (or something different) than what the text says is not somthing I tend to try to do.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is necessary to keep religion out of government to keep government out of religion.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... you have said that about four times on this thread ...

and it sounds stupid to me ...

Because the entire Constitution prevents the problem you seem so fearul off ...

To say nothing of the two lines of the Constitution the thread refers to, which prevent it ... head on.

Find a new line or argument ... Something :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Your claim is like saying that because we have the second amendment groups like the NRA are moot and useless.

This country is what, 80% Christian? If you allow religion freely in government, Christianity will dominate our Congress and will slowly lead to a state sponsored religion. The separation must work in both directions else it is ineffective.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right Decoydummy, and it isn't worth arguing with a person like MT about it. If we took the opposite view he would argue what we now argue. The reason we don't need to argue, is because they can't stop religion from influencing government. If you are Christian, and you have Christian values, and you vote, you effect government. The only way they could stop us is if they said Christians can't vote and that isn't going to happen. So it is a moot point.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Christianity DOES dominate our Congress ... some prefess it freely and some are preoccupied with "buying votes" by what ever means necessary.

It's just the Paranoid Whackos who trust not James Madison and his Commrades work and chose to take every opportunity to convolute the very basis of the Constitution to their narrow minded perspective. Since they can not do it via the Constitution they strive to do it through the courts

You see ... Mr. Madison and friends were NOT so narrow minded ... However, they were very afraid of folks trying to dominate the Constitution via the Courts

BTW ... The NRA exists because folks are attempting to take away the very right James Madison transcribed into perpituity. You seem to have stood that one on it's head as well ...


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

AGREED !!
There is one thing I could never understand though .It seems like the more people address the issue the farther they get from an amicable solution . Like plain common sense .

ex. - Morning prayer in school : I had morning prayer in school and I also recited the Pledge of Allegiance . I would like to see these things remain .I would like my Grandchildren do the same as I did .
Here is a simple solution that would exclude those who don't wish their children to pray or pledge any allegiance to our country .( It should be noted that in most cases it is the adult parent(s) who are the objectors).

Solution : Arrange so that people who pray report to a " home room " for the morning prayer and attendance activities . Those who don't wish to pray report to another or several alternate rooms . After that everyone goes about the business of learning . What could be more f-----g simple than that , and why do these scholarly a--h---s not get it ?

You see it's a matter of people getting dragged into politics ( that only keeps some idiot in office ) when the bickering escalates out of control . (THE) people could have resolved any of the issues readily without the help of politicians dragging " government into it " On the other hand I find it as equally repulsive when certain few religious leaders attempt to influence government policy that affects all Americans and not only their camp . 
There is something lost since I was a kid . Back then it was like this -
You don't want to pray ? Keep your mouth shut while we do . You don't like they way this country is ? Go home . You want things and money ? Go to work . Your a kid , you don't know anything yet . Sit down and shut up .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> BTW ... The NRA exists because folks are attempting to take away the very right James Madison transcribed into perpituity. You seem to have stood that one on it's head as well ...


Precisely my point. There are also people who are trying their damndest to involve religion in the government as much as possible. The first amendment, like the second, is worthless unless people are willing to back it up.



> Arrange so that people who pray report to a " home room " for the morning prayer and attendance activities . Those who don't wish to pray report to another or several alternate rooms . After that everyone goes about the business of learning . What could be more f-----g simple than that , and why do these scholarly a--h---s not get it ?


Because it is a hell of a lot easier to tell people to pray at home, and keep the state as far away from religion as possible. Prayer has no relation to schooling and should not be included in any form.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

So what do you say to those people who wish for the Bible to be taught in school as an historic document ?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The historical accuracy of the Bible is questionable, so I would be against it on that level.

If it was to be done however, those persons would have to be willing to allow the Quran and the Torah, etc. to be taught in school as well under for the same reason.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I was in school in the not so distant past...

We recited the pledge, then had 30 seconds of silence. Not coming from a religious home, I never once thought that I needed to pray during that 30 seconds. I just sat there quietly thinkin about stuff that 8 yr olds think about.

Seems to me it was just fine the way it was.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Come to think of it, I believe it was that way in my elementary school days as well. I don't take any offense to such a thing.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

All these things would be fine . To teach the aspects of every religion would broaden ones learning experience immensely . It is the difficulty finding middle ground with these extremists on both sides of the fence . I think they are more worried about the other getting one over on them and how it would look in the press .I'm afraid there will never be compromise . Look at the rest of the world as an example .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is indeed impossible to maintain a balance, especially with so many religions in the world. As such it is not only easier but safer to keep religion as a whole out of the public school system.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

I gotta go bed now . :roll:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT Wrote:

Precisely my point. There are also people who are trying their damndest to involve religion in the government as much as possible. The first amendment, like the second, is worthless unless people are willing to back it up.

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

I'm glad you see that as "Pecisely Your point" ... because in my mind that makes you appear Dislexic. There is nothing in the Constitution referring to Religion or it's Effects in Government ... Only about Government Affecting Society by Imposing Religion or Restricting Religion on Society.

Maybe we need a new NRA ... "National Religion Association"

To protect the Constitution as Mr Madison wrote it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Again, if you do not keep religion out of the government you cannot possibly expect to keep the government out of religion.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

This is some long reading but if you mistakenly think the Ten Commandments are not part of our Constitution and legal system then read this link. I think you will see that religion is deeply rooted in our government and has been for a long time. I see nothing in our constitution that says religion cannot or should not be in our government. And as noted there is no such thing as separation of church and state in our Constitution.

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Come to think of it, I believe it was that way in my elementary school days as well. I don't take any offense to such a thing.


Exaclty! But those who scream for separation describe those 30 seconds as forced prayer, and that it should be removed. I cant agree with that.

Then there are those that refer to the Pledge of Allegience as a prayer in and of itself. They want it gone too.

As you can see, there is no defined line. So even though you are not offended by those 30 seconds or the pledge, others are. And by supporting the notion of separation, you give them support to remove these things from school.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Oh my God MT ...

Not that line AGAIN ...

I guess you believe you are smarter than Mr. Madison and friends ...

They were very, very afraid of many things ... but these are the words they settled on as being Rightful to the Ends they had in mind ...

I am lead to believe ... folks like you ... are amoung those they were fearful of ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

What exactly gives you this idea that the Founding Fathers wanted religion in the government?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

To add to my point, the base problem is that instead of non-believers tolerating a few minutes of something they dont believe in, we are told that we are intollerant, and that we should give up our rights to pray and recite our allegiance to the symbol of our country.

We are told that it shows intolerance by wishing someone a Merry Christmas, instead of the simple fact that that the minority is being intolerant of our beliefs.

I dont know about your neck of the woods, but out here, we call it bull****!


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

For like, the 5th time...



Militant_Tiger said:


> Again, if you do not keep religion out of the government you cannot possibly expect to keep the government out of religion.


Isnt this that circular logic you always accuse other of using?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> To add to my point, the base problem is that instead of non-believers tolerating a few minutes of something they dont believe in, we are told that we are intollerant, and that we should give up our rights to pray and recite our allegiance to the symbol of our country.


There are more whites than blacks in the country as well. How would you feel if there was a minute of celebration of white pride at the beginning of school?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

FROM JEFFERSON'S TEXT

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to *restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. *

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

Tell me about that particular string of words ... Also from the text of Jefferson's response.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> There are more whites than blacks in the country as well. How would you feel if there was a minute of celebration of white pride at the beginning of school?


I've got no problem with that either. Thats 180 minutes a year (I think there are 180 school days, I cant recall). Three little hours total. We have a whole MONTH for celebrating black pride. If a black man can be black and proud without being a racist, then a white man can be white and proud without being a racist. Only statements made in the context of yours make it seem like a racist idea.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I wonder why it is this line is overlooked ... *"convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties"* .

and the line about "wall of seperation" is invoked.

Seems maybe Jefferson was saying ... "this wall ... is a damned short wall."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Decoy maybe it is just me but that line doesn't seem to support your point.



> I've got no problem with that either. Thats 180 minutes a year (I think there are 180 school days, I cant recall). Three little hours total. We have a whole MONTH for celebrating black pride. If a black man can be black and proud without being a racist, then a white man can be white and proud without being a racist. Only statements made in the context of yours make it seem like a racist idea.


It is not the context of my statement but rather the meanings behind black pride and white pride that make the idea racist.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

At the risk of going off topic, youre wrong.

There is nothing more racist about "white pride" than there is about "black pride"

Only years of indoctrination from schools and liberals in the media are we led to believe that being proud of being white automatically screams racism.

I tried to form the Aryan Student Union when I was in high school. Just to see if I could. WE already had the Black Student Union, The Hispanic Student Union, and the Asian Student Union. I was decried a racist, and that Minorities have exclusive rights. MY argument that whites WERE the minority at my school fell on deaf ears. So did my calls to the ACLU....


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

What more natural right could there be than the right to believe in and conduct life clinging to a "Higher Power" ...

For most that would be God and Religion...

In the context of the Jefferson Letters where we find ... and are presently discussing the topic ...

Are you denying Jefferson was referencing (or at the very least primarily including) God and Religion???

And Jefferson wasn't even a Religious sort of guy as I understand History.

I know how you hate to see and acknowledge truth ... but you really need to answer that one for me


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is not the context of my statement but rather the meanings behind black pride and white pride that make the idea racist.


One is no more racist than the other. If we are truly a non racist nation then we can have a black college fund (something like that), and a white college fund. What is the old cliché "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". Anything for a special group denied another is racist. I will not call you racist MT because I realize you are not, you are simply brain washed (conditioned to social inequality).
The fact is MT you do not think for yourself. You are simply a reflection of those you choose to admire. Your knowledgeable, but not yet mature.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> There is nothing more racist about "white pride" than there is about "black pride"


Except for the fact that we weren't slaves, but the calls of white pride were used for years by racist and terrorist organizations to keep blacks from being seen as equals.



> I tried to form the Aryan Student Union when I was in high school.


I'll be damned.



> What more natural right could there be than the right to believe in and conduct life clinging to a "Higher Power" ...


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to name a few.



> One is no more racist than the other. If we are truly a non racist nation then we can have a black college fund (something like that), and a white college fund.


I can see where you are coming from but you must understand that for 90 some years in America, plus the years preceeding it in Europe, blacks were slaves. They were not allowed to learn to read or write. We have a considerable head start. Blacks were never given reparations, and I believe that helping them towards college is the least we can do.



> The fact is MT you do not think for yourself. You are simply a reflection of those you choose to admire. Your knowledgeable, but not yet mature.


I thank you, but the same could be said for you and everyone on here. I don't believe you or I have ever had an original thought.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsman,
Your eliquonce never ceases to amaze me. You truly are the kindest person on this site..........If only you would adopt MT for one summer. I believe he would be all the better for it. He needs to walk a few, no many miles out here in the land of Dakotas.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Except for the fact that we weren't slaves, but the calls of white pride were used for years by racist and terrorist organizations to keep blacks from being seen as equals.


No whites were not slaves, but we had been indentured servants, which is a form of slavery. Problem was a white slave can easily disappear into the mix. Hence the popularity of black slaves.

Oh and "Black Power" was a term used by a very racist group known as the Black Panthers. Its use today is not renowned by most as a racist cry.

In regards to my trying to form an Aryan student union, one thing you have to understand, and it would be impossible to via the internet without a picture, but Im not an Aryan. An Aryan is defined as a blonde hair blue eyed white person. Im barely one of the three. Neither were most of the people who were trying to do it with me, including the most anti-black black kid you ever met. It was a social experiment. And it proved my point.

Have you ever owned a slave MT? When you're in public school, do the teachers teach the white kids and ignore the blacks? Im guessing the answer to both is no. And now that you're close to college years, you are going to have a lot less scholarship oportunities as a white then you would as a minority. But years of indocrination have taught you its ok to give a black student extra help, because he is oppressed. Thats bull**** and you know it.



> > What more natural right could there be than the right to believe in and conduct life clinging to a "Higher Power" ...
> 
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to name a few.


And arent they all directly related to ones religions beliefs, if one has them? Life from God, Liberty from God, and free will to persue said happiness, all from God. Thanks God!



> I can see where you are coming from but you must understand that for 90 some years in America, plus the years preceeding it in Europe, blacks were slaves. They were not allowed to learn to read or write. We have a considerable head start. Blacks were never given reparations, and I believe that helping them towards college is the least we can do.


Ok, this argument is flawed. Our ancestors may have had a head start, but we sure as hell didnt. Blacks are taught to read and write just like we are. I dont recall sittin in school and thinking Im white, Im better off. Everyone in school got out of it what they put into it. We were all equal. My family certainly isnt rich either, so where exactly am I better off than a black man?

As for reparations, no, officially they werent given reparations. But they werent shipped back home to Africa either. They stayed, and became active members of our society. Yes they had to fight damn hard to be seen on equal footing, but I truly believe that that equal footing has been established. Look at Condeliza Rice, and Colin Powell. Look at anyone in your high school class for that matter, and try and show me how oppressed the black population of your high school is.



> I thank you, but the same could be said for you and everyone on here. I don't believe you or I have ever had an original thought.


Thats a point thats very hard to argue, but the only thing I can say is its not a good idea to believe that, because where is the desire to think new if one believes its all old anyway?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No whites were not slaves, but we had been indentured servants, which is a form of slavery. Problem was a white slave can easily disappear into the mix. Hence the popularity of black slaves.


Serfdom ended in most areas long before black slavery did. They could also learn to read and write in the latter days.



> Oh and "Black Power" was a term used by a very racist group known as the Black Panthers. Its use today is not renowned by most as a racist cry.


Which was a reactionary group to white racism.



> Have you ever owned a slave MT? When you're in public school, do the teachers teach the white kids and ignore the blacks? Im guessing the answer to both is no. And now that you're close to college years, you are going to have a lot less scholarship oportunities as a white then you would as a minority. But years of indocrination have taught you its ok to give a black student extra help, because he is oppressed. Thats b#llsh*t and you know it.


For 90 years they could neither write nor read, and you expect them to jump into the fray and keep up with the rest of the group? Being that they did not have access to books nor writing materials for so many years there is still a belief that education is not terribly important amongst many black communities. I'm certain you would like to pin the blame on them for not being motivated but I doubt that if we were put in the same situation for so long that we would have any more gumption.



> And arent they all directly related to ones religions beliefs, if one has them? Life from God, Liberty from God, and free will to persue said happiness, all from God. Thanks God!


I suppose you could relate all things to God if you chose to do so. That doesn't prove anything, though.



> Thats a point thats very hard to argue, but the only thing I can say is its not a good idea to believe that, because where is the desire to think new if one believes its all old anyway?


"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Albert Einstein


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Except for the fact that we weren't slaves


So then the following is a lie?

Quote is from: The following article is a brief synopsis of the extensive research found in Michael A. Hoffman II's ground-breaking history book, "They Were White and They Were Slaves,"

And can be found here: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html



> When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary "indentured servitude" or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The "convicts" transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.
> 
> The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master's silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.
> 
> ...


The above is just a small exerpt from the article. I am interested what his book says. I found this doing a search on white slaves, I knew that whites had been enslaved in other countries for many many years, but really had no idea that it was to such a great extent here in the US.

Sorry if I am hijacking the thread, I get real upset when the race card is pulled. According to this article I should be real ******, my ancestors were Irish, and it appears that they were treated far worse than the blacks were.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your exactly right hunt1, furthermore no one alive in America today, black or white, can remember slavery, nor can their parents. It is far removed and only a memory, yet there are those who will milk it for all that it is worth. Today we still have affirmative action which is nothing less than government supported racism/sexist. It is not a product of compassion, rather it is a way for unscrupulous politicians to influence votes in their favor. The ironical thing is these same politicians who espouse to treat people equally do not. Not only that, but to think someone needs affirmative action today indicates to me that they think these people are not capable without a leg up on the situation. And who is racist? 
If we white, black, male, female, every American do not learn to put the past behind us we are destined to forever bicker like the people in the middle east. We scratch our heads at 2000 year old feuds, while we are well on our way to our own. I find it ironic that those who are truly not racist rarely mention it, while those who wish to pat themselves on the back and play the race card are the true racists. The racists of yesteryear were slave owners, while the contemporary racist uses the term racist itself for personal advantage, be it monetary, political power, or otherwise.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Thats exactly the kinda stuff I was talking about. MT keeps throwing this 90 yrs of educational non existance for blacks, but jesus, that was over by the turn of the 20th century. We are now in the 21st century, and as far as Im concerned a man is a man is a man, I dont care what color he is. The time for affirmitive action is over.

MT, you have to realise that even your public schooling has skewed your sence of the race line. We are drilled over and over that the Civil War was over slavery. Thats not true. It was over Taxes, and the south was in the right! It wasnt until later in the war when Abraham Lincoln needed an edge, thatfreeing the slaves became an issue. It was the Gettysburg Address that brought this notion to fruition, and that speach was given well after the war had begun.

Your bright MT, do some research. You will find that the currant racial divide in this country is nothing more than the tool of politicians, quite usually from your beloved liberal camp, wielding it for the sole purpose of personal gain.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Actually Lincoln never profess "ending" Slavery ...

He only Professed NO expansion of Slavery to new Territories.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

And speaking of Good Old Abe ... a quote from the Gettysburg Address ... a clear referrence to GOD

"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, *under God*, shall have a new birth of freedom."

My memory tells me that Abe wrote that speech himself too.

Talk about bringing Religion into Government ... Abe had a real bad case of it going there ... speaking of even a "New Birth" directly after a reference to God ...

Oh my God ... We are Doomed ... I can see it all now :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Your exactly right hunt1, furthermore no one alive in America today, black or white, can remember slavery, nor can their parents. It is far removed and only a memory, yet there are those who will milk it for all that it is worth. Today we still have affirmative action which is nothing less than government supported racism/sexist. It is not a product of compassion, rather it is a way for unscrupulous politicians to influence votes in their favor. The ironical thing is these same politicians who espouse to treat people equally do not. Not only that, but to think someone needs affirmative action today indicates to me that they think these people are not capable without a leg up on the situation. And who is racist?


You are basically saying that in the relay race of life, though they were held back at the start they should be right up to us now. It just doesn't work that way. Such scars don't heal over a single or even a few generations.



> Sorry if I am hijacking the thread, I get real upset when the race card is pulled. According to this article I should be real ticked, my ancestors were Irish, and it appears that they were treated far worse than the blacks were.


Child labor of all European groups was very popular at the beginning of the first Industrial Revolution. Things were rather quickly remedied though, and children were forced to go to school if they chose to work. For two, three, or four generations blacks were specifically barred from reading or writing.



> MT, you have to realise that even your public schooling has skewed your sence of the race line. We are drilled over and over that the Civil War was over slavery. Thats not true. It was over Taxes, and the south was in the right! It wasnt until later in the war when Abraham Lincoln needed an edge, thatfreeing the slaves became an issue. It was the Gettysburg Address that brought this notion to fruition, and that speach was given well after the war had begun.


Slavery was always an issue, but was swept under the rug for as long as possible.



> My memory tells me that Abe wrote that speech himself too.
> 
> Talk about bringing Religion into Government ... Abe had a real bad case of it going there ... speaking of even a "New Birth" directly after a reference to God ...


Good thing he wasn't a founding father. As a side note he also called the spirits using a psychic of sorts to speak with his deceased son, so take that quote with as much weight as you wish.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You MT are supporting inequality. It should make no difference if a person is black, white, male, female, or stripped Martian hermaphrodite. I don't care about those things, or if they are rich or poor, only if they are good honest people. A person always wants their children to be successful, but I wanted mine to be good honest people above all else. Money, power, prestige are all secondary. 
This falls in well with our sermon in church a few weeks ago. The pastor has been going through one of the ten commandments each week. That week it was "honor thy father and mother that thy days may be long upon the earth". He went on to explain how it also meant respect for authority. Further he made a point to say that it is foolish to think of your child as your "best friend". You must be a parent first. It is selfish on a parents part to shirk their duty as a parent so the child sees them as a friend. You often hear this from a single female parent, perhaps because they are lonesome, they buddy up to their kid rather than teach them right from wrong. 
MT it would appear you have little respect for others. You have restarted threads when I have locked them. If you can't respect that it is hard to believe you respect the constitution or anything else. You either are respectful or you are not. Many people tout the constitution because it helps them or protects them, but they don't really respect it. You respect part of the first amendment, but not all of it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You often hear this from a single female parent, perhaps because they are lonesome, they buddy up to their kid rather than teach them right from wrong.


So single parents are incapable or less capable of producing a good child than a home with a father and mother. What a misconception.



> MT it would appear you have little respect for others. You have restarted threads when I have locked them. If you can't respect that it is hard to believe you respect the constitution or anything else. You either are respectful or you are not. Many people tout the constitution because it helps them or protects them, but they don't really respect it. You respect part of the first amendment, but not all of it.


What a stretch that is. You either support all authority or you support no authority? The world just isn't that black and white.



> You MT are supporting inequality. It should make no difference if a person is black, white, male, female, or stripped Martian hermaphrodite.


You can't hold a race of people back for nearly a century and expect them to catch up with the rest of the group within a few generations.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> We are drilled over and over that the Civil War was over slavery. Thats not true. It was over Taxes, and the south was in the right!


While I certainly agree and anyone with any knowledge of history should know that the Civil war wasn't really about slavery, I think it had more to do with keeping the Union together and united than anything else.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT to be fore one group of people you have to be against another. You either treat all people equal or you do not. It's a catch 22 there is no way around it. People are equal or they are not. I for one consider everyone equal. 
Lets say their a group of round people, and a group of square people. Nine square people apply for a job and one round person. Six of the square people are qualified and the round person is qualified. Three of the square people are the top contenders for the job. The round person comes in number four. Who do you hire. 
And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it. It's not just a religious view ask just about anyone.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT to be fore one group of people you have to be against another. You either treat all people equal or you do not. It's a catch 22 there is no way around it. People are equal or they are not. I for one consider everyone equal.


But not everyone is an equal. This is not the idealistic communism, not everyone is on equal footing.



> And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it. It's not just a religious view ask just about anyone.


That is ridiculous. You are in no place to judge such a thing. Do you have any experience or data that proves this? This, like many of your other beliefs are based on facts which reside in your mind alone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Quote:
> And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it. It's not just a religious view ask just about anyone.
> 
> That is ridiculous. You are in no place to judge such a thing. Do you have any experience or data that proves this? This, like many of your other beliefs are based on facts which reside in your mind alone.


Check with a child development psychologist. Check with a pastor. Check with a Rabbi. Check statistics of well balanced children. It doesn't mean a single mother or single father can't do it, it simply means that a mother and a father are better than a single parent. I didn't know there was anyone including a single parent that would argue that point. But then you are not eighteen yet, so you are a child trying to explain to a grandparent ------- no arrogance there.
Oh, by the way MT I have 42 colledge credit hours in guidance principles and practices, three sons, four grandchildren, and you have what?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it. It's not just a religious view ask just about anyone.


Then M_T said:


> That is ridiculous. You are in no place to judge such a thing. Do you have any experience or data that proves this? This, like many of your other beliefs are based on facts which reside in your mind alone.


Actually, it is not ridiculous. Speaking from 27 years in law enforcement, children who grow up with both parents at home tend to be better behaved and less prone to illegal activity, drug and alcohol abuse and have more respect for authority than do children from single parent homes. Not that some kids from two parent homes don't have problems, or that some kids from single parent homes aren't well behaved. But, the correlation as outlined by plainsman is there. If you go to college, and if you take a few psycology/sociology courses you will learn this.

From an article published by the Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD01B1&v=PRINT

Single Parenthood: Life Without Father
Volume No.: 77
by: Dr. Susan Orr

A study of more than twelve-thousand young people between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one found that those who lived in one-parent families had more behavioral problems and lower mathematical and reading ability than children raised in two-parent families.[18]· 
Boys raised outside of an intact nuclear family are more than twice as likely as other boys to end up in prison, even controlling for a range of social and economic factors.[19]· 
Female-headed households or father absence is a strong predictor for suicide among young adult and adolescent boys.[20]· 
Children who grew up in a single-parent home are twice as likely to get divorced than children who grew up in a two-parent biological family.[21]· A UCLA study of youths between the ages of twelve and seventeen showed that the adolescents in single-parent and step-families were more likely to have had sexual intercourse at an earlier age than children who lived with both biological parents.[22]· 
A University of Texas study found that teenagers from single-parent homes were more likely to engage in delinquent behavior and use illicit drugs or alcohol compared to teens from intact homes.[23]· 
Children in two-parent families are more likely to have at least one parent who works full-time all year round. In 1997, 88 percent of children living in two-parent families had at least one parent who worked full-time year-round, while 70 percent of children living with a single father and only 41 percent of children in families headed by a single mother had a parent who worked full time all year.[24]

There is a disclaimer on the website that some of this information may be outdated, from personal experience, if anything the problem is worse.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it.





> It doesn't mean a single mother or single father can't do it, it simply means that a mother and a father are better than a single parent.


You seem to imply that children turn out better in the first comment but then state that they simply have a better chance to turn out well in the second. I would agree with the second more than the first. From your first comment I got the impression that children from two parent homes were inherently better than those from single parent homes. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Gohon said:


> > We are drilled over and over that the Civil War was over slavery. Thats not true. It was over Taxes, and the south was in the right!
> 
> 
> While I certainly agree and anyone with any knowledge of history should know that the Civil war wasn't really about slavery, I think it had more to do with keeping the Union together and united than anything else.


You are correct, and I should have been more clear. The separation of the union was a result of taxes. The war was to bring the country back together.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> This, like many of your other beliefs are based on facts which reside in your mind alone.


I think you owe Plainsman an apology.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I live in the south and I find that most of the racism comes from blacks that have a chip on their shoulder all the time trying to play the race card. Every little thing that dont go their way and they think it is because they are black. I have heard more blacks say racial things than whites. But you let me say somehting about being white and I would prolly be locked up.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

MT: Not to hi-jack the thread, but youth who grow up with a two parent family home tend to be more successful and do better than those raised by only one parent.

There are just too many statistics out there to post, but you find that from education levels achieved to incarceration rates two parent family homes are the best in terms of child or youth development.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

live2hunt said:


> MT: Not to hi-jack the thread, but youth who grow up with a two parent family home tend to be more successful and do better than those raised by only one parent.
> 
> There are just too many statistics out there to post, but you find that from education levels achieved to incarceration rates two parent family homes are the best in terms of child or youth development.


I would agree with this. From Plainsman's initial statement I took that he meant that children in a two parent home will always turn out better regardless. I have heard this argument made before by evangelists and it is ridiculous.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Gun Owner, I also should have been more clear as to when I used the word "anyone" I wasn't speaking of you but directing that at another on here. I know you know what you are talking about in these matters.

Years ago I once read the name of a person back in the Civil war days who was most directly responsible for pushing the abolishment of slavery. For the life of me I can't remember his name, so I looked around the net last night. Still can't find the name that I would recognize but I did stumble upon this site that has a pretty good time table of the events concerning slavery. you might find it a good reference for future use.

http://www.americanheritage.com/article ... 1_74.shtml


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gun Owner said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > This, like many of your other beliefs are based on facts which reside in your mind alone.
> ...


Ya, thats going to happen. When pigs fly.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Ya, thats going to happen. When pigs fly.


My comment was based on the understanding that you meant that children with two parents would always turn out better than those with one and that they were inherently better kids. Had I understood you properly my comment would indeed have been out of line.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I see it was just a misunderstanding. You will admit your wrong when your man enough. If you had just a little bit of respect for anyone but yourself you would contemplate things for a minute of two before shooting from the hip.

I give you about a week, before I have to start locking theads. I see Robert took care of one for me today while I was at work. Thanks Robert.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You would be hard pressed to find anything terribly personal, and I have let personal attacks on me slide (see ABBK).

You're welcome to call me a child who shoots from the hip, but this statement seemed rather conclusive concerning your belief that children with two parents are better than those with one.



> And yes MT a child with both a mother and a father do grow up better. No doubt about it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your relatively unqualified to argue this topic MT, if you want respect limit yourself to something you know something about. You have taken a side where 99 percent of America disagrees with you. But don't let that stop you right?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

99% of America believes that a child from a single parent home is inferior compared to one which comes from a two parent home? Which America is this?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Choose to misunderstand if you wish, but I'm not going to bite. I have to go mow lawn now I can't spend 16 hours a day on here like you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

No, I really have no idea what you are talking about. You make your statements rather ambiguous.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... Why do you insist on arguing irrational points that have nothing to do with anything more than SYNTAX ...

It's something like a fifth grader would do.

There is no doubt that a child brought up with a two parent family can turn out horrible ... Hell, Jeffery Dahmer was raised in a "normal" two parent setting.

You as well as anyone else has to know that these discussions are talked about based on the averages ... On the average kids from a "Normal" two parent family have a hugely better chance of being in a better position to exist in Society in a Productive, Peaceful way.

And that is true because of the added security, consistency, supervision and training not to mention the example being set in the home ... by example I mean the clear life experience of seeing issues resolved without resorting to "blowing the family apart" which by definition is acceptable (to one parent or the other) in a "One Parent" experience.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT ... Why do you insist on arguing irrational points that have nothing to do with anything more than SYNTAX ...


I would call it a misunderstanding of a statement, but to each his own.


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

To me the worst kids are the ones who are raised without a father. Not necessarily a single parent but a single mom. The stronger the father figure the better the child seems to turn out. Not saying this is true in all cases, everybody is diifferent. Thats like saying everybody from the north is a republican.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

kills 4 fun said:


> To me the worst kids are the ones who are raised without a father. Not necessarily a single parent but a single mom. The stronger the father figure the better the child seems to turn out. Not saying this is true in all cases, everybody is diifferent. Thats like saying everybody from the north is a republican.


Both Hitler and Stalin had strong father figures, so I'm not certain that it holds true.


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

I didnt say every case, that is just the way it appears to me. Thats all,


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

Also, Hitler was only 13 when his father passed away....


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

kills 4 fun ... Obviously my post to MT had ZERO Affect.

MT obviously ignored your "disclaimer."

I suppose it's possibe to have an Imposing ... maybe to the point of Abusive Father Figure (which would be outside the realm of normal) ... creating an abnormal view of "Proper Conduct" and assesment of "Personal Power/Dominance."


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

OKAY :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DecoyDummy said:


> kills 4 fun ... Obviously my post to MT had ZERO Affect.
> 
> MT obviously ignored your "disclaimer."
> 
> I suppose it's possibe to have an Imposing ... maybe to the point of Abusive Father Figure (which would be outside the realm of normal) ... creating an abnormal view of "Proper Conduct" and assesment of "Personal Power/Dominance."


I can't figure out what's going on here, when I read your post I don't see the part where it says MT oviously ignored your "dislcaimer", but when I quote you it shows up. 
Anyway, DecoyDummy thank you for trying to help me keep this on track. Thanks to kills 4 fun also for trying to make some sense of this. I pull my hair sometimes until I see posts like yours. Calm, rational, and respectful.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman ... I edit the hell out of things ... and try to do it before the system starts showing changes as edits ... and also before too many folks can read my unedited final product 

Infact this post was edited twice :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I'm sure MT's parents are a couple of real nice guys anyway....that doesn't mean he's going to turn out liberal does it?


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> I'm sure MT's parents are a couple of real nice guys anyway....that doesn't mean he's going to turn out liberal does it?


Well, that should be enough to put this thread out of its misery. You are a grown man ABBK and you have been talked to about this. Take the high road.


----------

