Five People Who Bravely Fought Christian Takeover of America

For non-sports-related posts. Because we really can't stand talking about sports!
Post Reply
User avatar
Fat Man
The Fat Man Judgeth
Posts: 3301
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:08 am
Gender: Male
Location: El Paso, Texas, USA, 3rd Planet, Sol System, Milky Way, Local Cluster, Somewhere in The Cosmos!

Five People Who Bravely Fought Christian Takeover of America

Post by Fat Man »

OK! Before I go on to the following Article from AlterNet, I need to address some issues here.

First of all . . . . . America is suppose to be a secular nation that allows for BOTH freedom of religion AND freedom FROM religion, and other words, the separation of church and state.

And NO, you Republican Retards out there!

Freedom FROM religion does not mean that we get our freedom from religion by being religious. DUH!!!

Freedom from religion means, freedom AWAY from religion, without having religion imposed on us.

Another words, freedom without religion if we choose.

Yeah! I know! I know!

Conservatives like to argue, that the words "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of The United States, that it was only a term used by Thomas Jefferson. Yeah! We get that!

OK! Here is what the First Amendment of The Constitutional does say . . . . .

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.

So, the separation of church and state is what is implied by the First Amendment, even if those exact words are not in there, it is what it implies.

Another words, America was intended to be a secular nation that does not prohibit or promote any religion.

And, by the way . . . . . prayer in public schools is not prohibited. Students may pray in school if they choose. Nobody is stopping you from bringing a Bible to school and praying. In fact, school libraries have copies of the Bible, and other religious books as well.

But what is prohibited, is that teachers can not lead prayers in the classrooms, and the classroom can not be interrupted by verbal praying. But, if you're sitting down to a meal in the school cafeteria, nobody is going to stop you from saying your little prayer before you eat, and if you have your little Bible on the table beside you, nobody is going to take it away from you. OK?

So, I really do wish that the religious right would stop being so fucking paranoid!

But again, naturally of course, right-wing conservatives like to say, by not allowing teacher lead prayers in the classroom, that when it comes to religion, we're "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as stated in The Constitution.

Again I say, NO!

By allowing teacher lead prayers in the classroom, then, religion is being promoted, which again, is un-Constitutional.

Freedom of religion dose not mean, the right to impose one's religious beliefs on other people against their will. It only means, being free practicing your religion as you see fit, but, without imposing it on others so they may enjoy there freedom AWAY from religion!

Got that? You Republican Retards?

OK, now that we got that out of the way . . . let's go on to the following article about the five brave people who fought to prevent a Christian takeover of America.
AlterNet / By Rob Boston

5 People Who Bravely Fought Christian Takeover of America
At crucial points when the church-state wall was most threatened
in America, there were people who rose up to defend it.

August 14, 2012 | At crucial points when the church-state wall was most threatened in America, people rose up to defend it. Some of these names may not be familiar today, or they may be known for other achievements. All contributed to shoring up the wall of separation.


Here are five unsung heroes of church-state separation:

1. Charles Pinckney: It was difficult to be a religious dissenter in colonial America. Prejudice ran rampant. Many state constitutions limited public office to Christians or even certain types of Christians, such as â??Trinitarian Protestants.â? Such â??religious testsâ? were seen as a way of ensuring that the men who held public office were of sound morals.

After the Revolution, when the federal Constitution was being drafted, a delegate from South Carolina named Charles Pinckney decided that there should be no such religious qualifications for federal office. He added a line to the end of Article VI â?? a provision that makes it clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that judges and elected representatives are bound to follow it â?? that read, â??No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.â?

An aristocrat and something of a dandy, the 30-year-old Pinckney relied on old-fashioned political maneuvering to get his way. When he introduced the â??no religious testâ? proposal to the convention, it was shuttled off to a committee, which ignored it. Undaunted, Pinckney brought the proposal up again on the full floor. The measure was seconded by Gouverneur Morris and adopted by the entire convention â??by a very great majority,â? as one member put it.

But the new Constitution had to be approved by the states, and here Pinckneyâ??s handiwork sparked some controversy. Delegates in North Carolina seemed especially offended by the passage in Article VI. One lawmaker fulminated about the possibility of â??pagans, deists and Mahometansâ? seeking office.

James Madison leaped to the defense of Pinckneyâ??s handiwork in the Federalist Papers, calling it one of the highlights of the proposed constitution. The provision remained intact. Although it was limited to federal office, the provision no doubt inspired the Supreme Court when in 1961 it struck down religious tests at the state level in the case Torcaso v. Watkins. Today a handful of states retain provisions in their constitutions barring atheists from holding public office, but they are dead letters and may not be enforced.

2. Joel Barlow: During the early years of the American republic, U.S. ships traveling near north Africa were frequently attacked by pirates operating out of Algiers and Tripoli. Many American sailors were kidnapped and held for ransom. The pirates, who were Muslim, often taunted the sailors for their Christian beliefs.

An American diplomat, Joel Barlow, attempted to find a non-military solution to the problem. Barlow worked for a number of years on a treaty designed to bring peace between the United States and the rogue states of north Africa.

The document that emerged, the Treaty of Tripoli, was negotiated primarily during the presidency of George Washington but was not forwarded to the Senate until John Adams was in office. It contains a provision, Article 11, stating bluntly, â??As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.â?

Barlow, who was known for his advocacy of secular government, forwarded the treaty to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, who endorsed it and sent it on to Adams. Adams, in turn, sent it to the Senate, which ratified the document. At no point during this process did anyone apparently raise objections to Article 11.

The â??no Christian nationâ? language in the treaty is strong evidence that early American leaders did not view the country that way. It helps handily debunk the Religious Rightâ??s assertions that the United States was founded to be a â??Christian nation.â?

3. Gulian C. Verplanck: The year was 1832, and a cholera epidemic was ravaging the countryside. Doctors at the time where helpless, as there was no reliable treatment against the dreaded disease. As bodies piled up, Congress decided to appeal for divine intervention, and a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer was proposed.

President Andrew Jackson was skeptical. Asked if he would issue such a proclamation, Jackson said no. Advising people to pray, Jackson asserted, fell outside of his job description.

â??I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the president; and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government," Jackson wrote in a letter to a religious group.

But Congress would not give up. Prodded by Sen. Henry Clay, the Senate passed the proclamation anyway. It looked like it would sail through the House of Representatives as well, until an unprepossessing man with the unlikely name of Gulian C. Verplanck stepped up to the speaker's podium on July 9.

In measured tones, Verplanck explained exactly why government-sponsored prayer is offensive.

"It seems to me clear that whenever Congress or any other political body in this country meddles in affairs of religion, they must run counter more or less to the spirit of our free institutions, securing equal religious rights," Verplanck asserted. "In this land, where every manâ??s faith is protected, and no manâ??s faith is preferred, even a resolution or a proclamation for a fast from the civil authority may offend the consciences or wound the feelings of some or the other of our citizens.â?

Verplanckâ??s colleagues were swayed by his powerful rhetoric: The proclamation died in the House.

So Verplanck was some kind of radical secularist, right? Not quite. Before serving in Congress, he was a professor at the General Theological Seminary in New York City.

4. Ulysses S. Grant: U.S. Grant is best known for being a hard fighting (and hard drinking) Civil War general and later a scandal-plagued president. His advocacy of church-state separation is less well known.

Grant had his share of problems during his presidency, but on the issue of church-state separation he showed true leadership. Sadly, this tends to get overlooked today.

During Grantâ??s presidency, the concept of tax-supported public education began to slowly spread across the nation. More and more states were adopting laws establishing public schools and even mandating attendance. But there was a problem: People could not agree on what role religion should play in the schools.

In 1844, there were riots in Philadelphia between Catholics and Protestants over what version of the Bible would be read in schools. Tensions simmered for years. Protestants insisted that since they were the majority in the country, the schools should reflect their theology. Catholics fumed that their rights were being violated and proposed that the federal government give them money to start their own schools that would inculcate Catholicism.

Grant had a better idea: No tax money for religious schools and no religious worship in the public schools. Keeping public schools secular, Grant proposed, would be in the best interests of the nation.

On Sept. 30, 1875, Grant addressed a gathering of former Union soldiers. He could have played it safe and offered some reminisces about the war. Instead, he decided to address the school issue.

â??Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men irrespective of nationality, color or religion,â? Grant said. â??Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar, appropriated for their support, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford to every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.â?

Grant was ahead of his time. While some state courts adopted his vision and struck down laws mandating school prayer in the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court did not declare official school prayer a violation of the First Amendment until 1962.

5. Ellery Schempp: The First Amendmentâ??s guarantees of religious freedom arenâ??t self-executing. Oftentimes, people have to go to court to claim their rights.

One guy who went to court was a high school student in suburban Philadelphia named Ellery Schempp. In the late 1950s, Schempp protested â?? to no avail â?? over his high schoolâ??s policy of reciting the Lordâ??s Prayer and reading from the King James Version of the Bible every morning. Schempp pointed out that his family was Unitarian and didnâ??t appreciate the school pushing Protestant Christianity on them.

When it became obvious that school officials werenâ??t going to stop, Schempp tried another tactic: One day, he told his teacher he would like to read along with the daily Bible verse. The teacher was pleased, figuring that Ellery had finally had a change of heart. He was less pleased when Ellery began reading from the Quran and even angrier when the young man refused to stand for the Lordâ??s Prayer. He sent Ellery to the principalâ??s office.

That night, Schempp dashed off a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU took his case, which reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling, the high court declared in 1963â??s Abington Township School District v. Schempp decision that public schools may not impose prayer and Bible reading on students. (Students, however, retain the right to pray and read religious texts on their own in a non-disruptive fashion.)

Schemppâ??s case sparked a backlash. The school principal branded him a troublemaker and actually wrote a letter to Tufts University, where Schempp had been accepted, urging officials to deny him admission. (Tufts ignored the letter.) The family was inundated with hostile mail and postcards calling them communists.

There was political fallout as well. More than 100 school prayer amendments were introduced in Congress. Hearings were held on one proposal in 1966, but it floundered. Amendments have been reintroduced sporadically since then.

Schempp went on to earn a Ph.D. at Brown University and work as an engineer. Now retired, he has remained active in the cause of church-state separation and often gives talks about his case, which has been cited hundreds of time by federal courts and has had a profound impact on the law relating to religion in public schools. (Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the Schempp ruling.)

The history of church-state separation features a lot of larger-than-life figures. We should celebrate their contributions. But we shouldnâ??t overlook the hardwork done by a lot of less well-known people, each of whom added some important bricks to the church-state wall.

Rob Boston is senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
So, there ya have it! Five brave people who stood up to fight a Christian takeover of America!

Also, I just learned something about General Ulysses S. Grant that I didn't know before.

Yes, I always knew that he was hard fighting and hard drinking Civil War general who fought for The North during The Civil War, and that he also smoked cigars. I'm glad The North won The Civil War, and that The South was defeated.

I would hate to think what America would be like today, if The South and won instead of The North. That would really suck!!!

But, I didn't know about his position on the separation of church and state, and his support of America being a secular nation. That particular aspect of General Grant was never mentioned in school history textbooks when I was in school.

But, now I know!

He also supported public school education for everyone. If he were living today, he would be appalled by what is going in America at the present time!
On Sept. 30, 1875, Grant addressed a gathering of former Union soldiers. He could have played it safe and offered some reminisces about the war. Instead, he decided to address the school issue.
Hey! September 30!!! That's my birthday! I was born September 30,1951 and I'm going to be 61 years old on my next birthday this year in 2012.

Well, I think from now on, I'm going to remember General Grant on my birthday because of his support of public school education.

But for the time being, after I have finished posting this topic . . . . .

. . . . . to honor General Grant . . . . .

. . . I'm going to kick back and relax, light up a cigar, and slowly sip a couple of shots of whiskey.

Yeah! I have some in my fridge.

So, here's to you General Grant!

ImageI'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!

All I want to hear from an ex-jock is "Will that be paper or plastic?" After that he can shut the fuck up!
Heah comes da judge! Heah comes da judge! Order in da court 'cuz heah comes da judge!

Post Reply