Odds and ends and on the road
I'm going on a road trip to visit my son Christopher in Maine. He's going to show me around the used book stores in Portland, I'll meet his girlfriend's parents, and then on Monday we're going to Boston to see Bruce Springsteen perform at what used to be called the Boston Garden. Lord only knows what corporation has bragging rights to it these days.
I'll be driving home Wednesday and Thanksgiving Day we'll be spendng with my mother-in-law.
All this by way of saying that I won't be posting for a couple of days. But Chris assures me that the Internet has made it to Maine so I'll be able to check in to see if you folks are playing nicely.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
I'll be driving home Wednesday and Thanksgiving Day we'll be spendng with my mother-in-law.
All this by way of saying that I won't be posting for a couple of days. But Chris assures me that the Internet has made it to Maine so I'll be able to check in to see if you folks are playing nicely.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
posted by Michael Riley at 2:01 PM
35 Comments:
I am sure there will be plenty more made-up stories to boost your ratings.. Jack Kerouac you ain't. I guess since I am an atheist I can't say God speed!
Happy Thanksgiving. Safe trip.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Godspeed Ray.
To all: Here's wishing you and yours a safe and joyous Thanksgiving -- one that's filled with many reasons to give thanks to Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
anonymous wrote:
"Godspeed Ray."
Thanks. Now let's sit back and see what happens.
I like Thanksgiving because it is a great time to reflect upon the Christian roots of our great nation.
Blog adminstrator said "This post has been removed by the blog administrator."
Why? The Press doens't like true statements about the author getting out? Freedom of speech... not here or the Press, just what we ant you to know.
Why was the post removed by the administrator?
If I had to guess, most likely it was 'comment spam' that linked to some website in an effort to draw traffic there and boost that site's rank on the search engines.
Otherwise, it might have just been some profanity-filled b.s.
no, prob just a personal insult on Riley-again
anonymous wrote:
"I like Thanksgiving because it is a great time to reflect upon the Christian roots of our great nation."
Baloney. We're not a Christian nation. This is made clear even for those who don't know (but should) in the 1797 in the Treaty of Tripoli which was requested by President Washington, approved by Congress and signed by President Adams. See earlyamerica.com and learn about the nation you say you love.
The blog post was eliminated because someone was getting too personal...I happened to read it before it was deleted. Person has a beef.
No, not a personal insult or spam. It was a comment on his true nature based on my and others personal contact with the author, rather than his 'on paper' persona and how he does not fit the profile of someone who engages others with the ease he did the 'drunk Irish' guy on a Sunday morning.
The point being, Mr. Riley has had problems with fact and fiction in his stories and the comment was to build on 'guess who's' comment regarding "made-up stories". Let's see if this one stands the censorship of the Press!!
Is America A Christian Nation?
"how he does not fit the profile of someone who engages others with the ease he did the 'drunk Irish' guy on a Sunday morning."
My father talks to anyone and everyone he can, even to the point of embarrassment. If he didn't engage you, well, based on your posts, I probably wouldn't either.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving, all.
Some interesting quotes from the Is America a Christian Nation? article:
President Harry Truman wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1947 that "This is a Christian nation."
As [Truman] told an Attorney General's Conference in 1950, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."
Woodrow Wilson, in his election campaign for President, made the same point: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."
The crucial role of Christianity in this nation's formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."
John Ashcroft was roundly criticized for his "No King but Jesus" speech at Bob Jones University, but he was only reminding us of our colonial and Revolutionary War heritage. In a 1774 report to King George, the Governor of Boston noted: "If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ." The pre-war Colonial Committees of Correspondence soon made this the American motto: "No King but King Jesus." And this sentiment was carried over into the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain ending that war, which begins "In the name of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity... ."
Samuel Adams, who has been called 'The Father of the American Revolution' wrote The Rights of the Colonists in 1772, which stated: "The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity's central role in our nation's founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.
Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ." (Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve).
Christianity pervaded the laws and the legal system of the States and the federal government. For example, Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows: "The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts... . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic." In 1811 ( People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held: "'...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... .' We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity... . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land... ." In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held ( Updegraph v The Commonwealth): Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men... ."
Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct"
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This was said despite the explicit provision in the federal Constitution forbidding any religious test for federal public office.
Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Madison, said in an 1829 speech at Harvard: "There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation." Story wrote several respected treatises or Commentaries on Constitutional Law, in which are found the following: "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the [First] Amendment...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."
Justice Story wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1844 ( Vidal v Girard's Executors): "It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law... ."
In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
During the Civil War, The Senate passed a resolution in 1863: "...devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God...encouraged ...to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate ...does hereby request the President ...to set aside a day for national prayer and humiliation." President Lincoln promptly issued a Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, stating "...in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate... ."
Congress in essence summarized all this preceding history when it passed a Joint Resolution designating 1983 as The Year of the Bible, stating: "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; ...deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; ...Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States....designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures". In 1988, a Joint Resolution of Congress declared that the first Thursday in May of each year is to be a National Day of Prayer.
The US Supreme Court forbade polygamy in 1890 (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States): "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world." Two years later, the Court, by Justice Brewer, approvingly cited many of the earlier cases cited above, discussed the history and prominent role of religion in laws, business, customs, and society, and held (Church of the Holy Trinity v United States): "...this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation... .we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth."
Chris, wake up and smell the baloney.Your dad never met a drunk irish man and offered him a drink, etc..it is so clear he fabricated that tale, as he has a history of doing.a la NY Times reporters, just to boost his ratings and prob his self-worth.
Have a happy thankssgiving, Chris.
"it is so clear he fabricated that tale, as he has a history of doing"
How is it clear? What is your proof? What was the nature of your personal contact? Were you slighted somehow? Did he insult you? Did he take your Barbie? Do you expect us to take your word for it over someone who has known him all his life?
I believe you've been very clear that you don't believe him. Is it ruining your life? Are you losing sleep over it?
Have a Happy Thanksgiving and move on.
Chris, have a good Thanksgiving.
Anonymous wrote:
"Some interesting quotes from the Is America a Christian Nation? article:..."
Yet somehow they... what?.. forgot to include the fact that this is a Christian nation in the document that defines us as a nation? Somebody please tell me how the founding fathers managed to forget to mention God and Jesus if they were so important to our founding! And somehow, when the Constitution was being sent around to the states for ratification, it got ratified anyway?
The fact of the matter is that, as I said, the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by Congress and the first two presidents. How do you reconcile that fact? It said that this is not a Christian nation. How could that have happened if this really was a Christian nation?
You quote, "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation... .we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth."
But then why is it unofficial? Given all of the bluster, why isn't it official? What you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that a dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court is the law of the land: So what if the majority said otherwise, right? And so what to the fact that the Constitution was constructed and ratified without an official mention of God or Jesus, right?
The real 'so what' is that there were and are people who spin their own religion into this when it's not in the Constitution. So what?
Ray and pat -find a real job pals.
Backwards nebraska, we all know you are riley or a family member, so your word means zilch.
Also:
Very few of the people you mentioned were even alive at the founding of our nation. As for the others, they lost in their bid against the Constitution.
Franklin's appeal for prayer was denied. What does that tell you? Robert Byrd's claim about the Christianity of the founders is a waste of time. Clearly he was wrong, especially with regared to Thomas Jefferson, who said clearly that the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin was nonsense.
And, the fact that some individual states had pro-Christian laws actually works against you because, after the Constitution was ratified, they no longer had those laws. Again, what does that tell you?
anonymous wrote:
""Ray and pat -find a real job pals."
Find a life, child.
Have you totally failed to understand that you have nothing to add and that your presence here calls attention to the fact that you have nothing going in your so-called life?
You're like someone who goes to a movie that you've already seen - and don't like - and end up throwing stuff at the screen while other people are trying to watch. How sad for you. Get a life.
Happy Thanksgiving Anonymous 11:29 pm
This blog title should be Praying for Ray-n!
I, for one, appreciate Chris's defense of his Dad. It's a noble and loving thing. He's a commendable son. Nice dig too. Unfortunately, he does not know how his father has treated many (most) with aloofness, distance and a sense of superiority (like "I'm the smartest on in the room" in his own words!). Again, they are not qualities that support him meeting a drunken stranger on a Sunday morning, taking him for a ride and buying him a drink. I don't mind so much the use of literary license with the stories, because the purpose seems to make a point regarding our human condition, but why can't Riley just tell a story without injecting himself as a central figure? I don't care if it's real or not, just don't distort the truth in the interest of making the story more compelling.
As for the 'beef' I have, it is with a Press that deceives the public, to get more readers (or lose fewer these days), so it can get more money to shareholders and executives without regard quality of information it supplies to the public. When I see something that sounds fishy, why shouldn't I (or anyone else) question it?
Case in point; I attended a class run by the company some years ago, When the instructor asked what the purpose of the Press was the answers came back from attendees that we were keepers of a public trust and defenders of the first amendment. The instructor said no, that was wrong, in the strongest terms possible. He corrected the class; the reason for the Press was to make money. Given that, be a very critical reader of all that the Press publishes.
Ray wrote:
"Yet somehow they... what?.. forgot to include the fact that this is a Christian nation in the document that defines us as a nation?"
I'd be willing to bet, Ray, that no where on your birth certificate, passport or driver's license will we find any mention of the fact that you are both smart and a nice guy. Should we fault the Bureau of Vital Statistics, the US State Department and/or the Department of Motor Vehicles for seeking to create documents that further a specific purpose but which nonetheless neglect to mention certain aspects of your personality?
Ray also wrote:
"Somebody please tell me how the founding fathers managed to forget to mention God and Jesus if they were so important to our founding!"
Well, they certainly didn't forget to mention God in our Declaration of Independence. In the treaty that ended our Revolutionary War -- a treaty of significantly more importance than the rather obscure Treaty of Tripoli, I might add -- our Founding Fathers certainly went out of their way not only to reference God, but they also alluded to Jesus Christ, the Second Person of The Blessed Trinity. If you recall, the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain that ended that war begins with the words: "In the name of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity... ."
The Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783
That said, and with respect to your specific question, our Founding Fathers were pragmatists eager to replace the very much failed Articles of Confederation with a document, a constitution, that would create a workable framework for our new and fledging Federal government. Given both the politics of the day and the difficulty of their task, our Founding Fathers deliberately went out of their way to draft a document that contained only the bare minimum necessary to get a new Federal government up and running. They certainly didn't seek to "define us as a nation," nor did they address, in the original constitution, all that was on their mind, as is evidenced by the fact that one of the very first matters our First Congress tackled was amending our constitution so as to add a Bill of Rights to that brand new document.
Are you willing to suggest, Ray, that because our Founding Fathers originally neglected to mention, say, freedom of the press or the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers, that these values -- values, I might add, that certainly define us as a nation far more than any document could -- that these values were of little concern to men that founded America? Again, does your birth certificate, passport, driver's license, or even your résumé adequately "define" you or even mention your deeply-held agnostic beliefs or that you seemingly care about the plight of the poor and the suffering?
Ray also wrote:
"The fact of the matter is that, as I said, the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by Congress and the first two presidents. How do you reconcile that fact?"
Sheer pragmatism on the part of our Founding Fathers. Our new economy desperately needed to trade with the world, piracy was a big problem (Our ships were being seized and our sailors were being captured and sold into slavery) and we had no Navy at the time capable of protecting our shipping interests on the other side of the globe. (The then mighty British Navy was no longer protecting American interests.) In short, our Founding Fathers would have held the hand of the Devil at that time if it meant peace on the high seas. Come to think of it, and considering with whom they signed the treaty, they came pretty close to doing just that. By way of analogy, put a gun to the head of my wife or one of my kids and I'll tell you anything I think you want to hear, my own beliefs and passions notwithstanding.
Incidentally, and for all your talk of this obscure treaty, you aware, Ray, are you not, that the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War? As such, the Treaty of Tripoli to which you make reference was only in force for a few short years and is no longer legally binding. The 1805 treaty that replaced the Treaty of Tripoli certainly does not contain the "America is not a Christian nation" language that appears in the original treaty, and instead speaks of respecting the different "religious opinions" that exist between the people of the United States and the Muslims they signed the new treaty with. Oh what a difference a few years makes, don't you think, Ray?
"From The Halls Of Montezuma To The Shores of Tripoli...": The USMC Hymn
Semper Fi, Ray, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Hi, all.
I am a co-worker of Mike's, and I can corroborate his son's story.
The "aloof" Mike Riley just came by my cubicle for the zillionth time today. He is a chatty fellow.
If "anonymous" would like to be friends with Mike, I'm sure that can be arranged.
Or, if "anonymous" dislikes Mike, or mistrusts his work, I suggest telling him so in person. Mike seems to enjoy the give-and-take of a robust debate. And wouldn't that be more cathartic for "anonymous" than these passive-aggressive posts?
Sincerely, and with good cheer,
Kelly-Jane Cotter
Kelly-Jane Cotter wrote:
"Mike seems to enjoy the give-and-take of a robust debate."
For the record, I am not the "anonymous" that wrote the comments to which you refer. That said, perhaps you can explain to all of us why it is that Reverend Riley is so very reluctant to address, on this blog, those criticisms directed towards him and with respect to that which he writes? One need only look to how Riley ignores and otherwise cowers in fear at the remarks made by Tommy DeSeno, aka JustifiedRight.com, (and others) to see that Riley, while "chatty" when the subject matter is insignificant, is nonetheless a coward at most other times?
Typo ... The last sentence should have ended with a period and not a question mark.
Of coures Riley kisses your butt Kelly-Jane Cotter,you are the entertainment reporter and he wants his share of free tix to his idol Springsteen or to tag along as your cub reporter in hopes of scoring his ringside seats or backstage Press pass. Sorry to burst your bubble sweetie. Still, noone has verified his good samaritan story with the Irish drunk > Here's athought,it never happened.
anonymous wrote:
[Me:]"Yet somehow they... what?.. forgot to include the fact that this is a Christian nation in the document that defines us as a nation?"
I'd be willing to bet, Ray, that no where on your birth certificate, passport or driver's license will we find any mention of the fact that you are both smart and a nice guy."
None of the above define me. Were a document necessary to define me it would certainly have to distinguish me from everyone else. Our Constitution does so for our nation. The Constitution also says where our rights come from: We The People. Interesting that those who feel our rights came from Christianity seem to miss that.
[Me:]"Somebody please tell me how the founding fathers managed to forget to mention God and Jesus if they were so important to our founding!"
Well, they certainly didn't forget to mention God in our Declaration of Independence. In the treaty that ended our Revolutionary War -- a treaty of significantly more importance than the rather obscure Treaty of Tripoli..
Then why is it missing in the Constitution? None of what went on before that point in time matters since we began as a nation the day the Constitution was ratified. State laws favoring Christianity were gone at that point. And the Treaty of Tripoli may have been "obscure" but it was the result of the work of, again, the first two presidents and Congress. You can't do an end-run around that fact.
Given both the politics of the day and the difficulty of their task, our Founding Fathers deliberately went out of their way to draft a document that contained only the bare minimum necessary to get a new Federal government up and running.
This is pure spin. In fact, one of the major objections to the Constitution was that it was a godless document. Including reference to God might have actually made it easier to get it ratified.
"Are you willing to suggest, Ray, that because our Founding Fathers originally neglected to mention, say, freedom of the press or the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers that these values --values, I might add, that certainly define us as a nation far more than any document could -- that these values were of little concern to men that founded America? .."
You've rather conceded that the Bill of Rights defines us as a nation but you fail to realize that this actually reinforces the fact that our Constitution nowhere mentions God, Jesus or Christianity since the Bill of Rights doesn't either.
[Me:]"The fact of the matter is that, as I said, the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by Congress and the first two presidents. How do you reconcile that fact?"
Sheer pragmatism on the part of our Founding Fathers. Our new economy desperately needed to trade with the world, piracy was a big problem... In short, our Founding Fathers would have held the hand of the Devil at that time if it meant peace on the high seas."
So now you've accused the Founding Fathers of being liars. Will the spin never stop?
"Incidentally, and for all your talk of this obscure treaty, you aware, Ray, are you not, that the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War?"
That means absolutely nothing. It doesn't make the fact that the founding fathers said that this is not a Christian nation go away. To call the treaty obscure and to say it was supplanted later is a red herring. All of your spin and excuses don't change anything.
Ray wrote:
"None of the above define me. Were a document necessary to define me it would certainly have to distinguish me from everyone else."
And your birth certificate, driver's license and/or passport do not distinguish you from everyone else? Dear God in Heaven, there aren't two or more identical Rays out there, are there? :-)
Ray wrote:
"Our Constitution does [define us] so for our nation."
No, it doesn't. To suggest otherwise is like saying that a company's articles of incorporation speak to the character of that company or its management philosophy. Our constitution is, for the most part, a document that describes the legal framework under which our Federal government operates. The fact that the constitution neglects, for example, to mention that the American people are kind and generous doesn't suggest for a moment that we are, by nature or design, apathetic or miserly. The deed to my home certainly distinguishes my property from that owned by others. That deed does not, however, mention that if one were to enter my house they would find ample evidence attesting to the fact that they were in a loving and Catholic home.
Ray wrote:
"The Constitution also says where our rights come from: We The People. Interesting that those who feel our rights came from Christianity seem to miss that."
What is interesting, Ray, is that the very cause which propelled us into revolution with Great Britain somehow seems to have escaped you. What made our revolution so unique, so radical was the belief that the rights of man most certainly do not hail from a benevolent state or even from each other (e.g., "We the People"), but rather come from an Almighty God and Creator. Our Founding Fathers said as much. They further believed that when a government -- any government -- violated those God-given rights, it was both the "right" and duty of those affected to overthrow that government and replace it with one that respected their God-given rights. If you doubt me, you ought to consider reading our Declaration of Independence sometime. To wit:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."
Unalienable (or inalienable) is an interesting word that one doesn't hear used all that often these days. At its core, it means that which cannot be surrendered, taken away or otherwise transferred. If, as you suggest, our rights come from the constitution -- a constitution that can, I submit, be amended through an entirely political process that does involve "We the People" but which does not necessarily require an act of Divine Providence -- then it only reasons to follow that those rights are neither God-given or inalienable. After all, that which the state or even "We the People" can give can just as easily be taken away. In short, our constitution -- not to mention the government of the day -- exists to secure our rights; the constitution and/or the government doesn't confer those rights.
Ray wrote:
"Then why is it missing in the Constitution? None of what went on before that point in time matters since we began as a nation the day the Constitution was ratified."
Tell that to the men that died in Valley Forge or at The Battle of Monmouth. It will certainly be news to them that they were fighting and dying for something other than their new nation, the very nation that we now call home.
Incidentally, how was your June 21st barbeque this year? Did you shoot off fireworks and sing "Happy Birthday" to America? Don't you think that it's a bit odd that most folks do just that on July 4th instead of June 21st? Silly people. If only they had you, Ray, teaching them (revisionist) US history.
Ray wrote:
"State laws favoring Christianity were gone at that point. "
Tisk, tisk. You ought to consider actually reading some of the links I provide, Ray. You'll look less foolish next time if you do just that. To wit, and from the Is America a Christian Nation? article referenced above:
Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 (Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ." Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve.
Ray wrote:
"And the Treaty of Tripoli may have been "obscure" but it was the result of the work of, again, the first two presidents and Congress. You can't do an end-run around that fact."
You mean in the same way that you ignore the fact that the treaty that ended our Revolutionary War with England begins with words that make reference not only to God, but which mention Jesus Christ as well? Or do you mean the extent to which you, Ray, ignore the enormous amount of evidence, only some of which is cited above, that attests to the Christian nature of our nation and its founding? Is that what you mean by "end-run," Ray?
Ray wrote:
"This is pure spin. In fact, one of the major objections to the Constitution was that it was a godless document."
Please disabuse me, Ray. Please cite some source that states or even suggests, at the time our constitution was being drafted and/or ratified, that there were a considerable number of Americans that objected to the fact that our (then) proposed constitution was "Godless." Assuming this were the case, wouldn't these "major objections" (your words) be even further evidence of the Christian nature of our nation and its founding, the actual words our Founding Fathers used (or didn't use) in our constitution notwithstanding?
Ray wrote:
"You've rather conceded that the Bill of Rights defines us as a nation but you fail to realize that this actually reinforces the fact that our Constitution nowhere mentions God, Jesus or Christianity since the Bill of Rights doesn't either."
Nor will one find in the Constitution or its amendments any mention of the fact that our Founding Fathers permitted Christian religious services to be held inside government-owned buildings, or that our Founding Fathers used taxpayer funds to pay Christian chaplains to lead them in prayer -- both of which clearly and further attest to the Christian nature of our nation, notwithstanding the fact the words "We are not a Christian nation" were somehow not stamped upon each and every document that came within the purview of our Founding Fathers. Again, I submit that it is impossible for a single document to adequately and completely define a person, much less an entire nation.
Ray wrote:
"So now you've accused the Founding Fathers of being liars. Will the spin never stop?"
Imagine that! I had the nerve, the unmitigated gall to suggest that very same folks that routinely owned, beat and raped slaves -- namely, our Founding Fathers -- might somehow be capable, their noble accomplishments on behalf of our nation notwithstanding, to be something less than honest when it suited their purpose, or when doing so would have saved the lives of their countrymen in harm's way. (e.g., The Treaty of Tripoli) How dare I suggest such a thing! Tell us, Ray, which of our Founding Fathers walked on water? All of them or just the ones that attended the Constitutional Convention?
Ray wrote:
"All of your spin and excuses don't change anything."
How do you define "spin," Ray? Does it refer only to that evidence that you conveniently choose to ignore, or does it encompass all of the arguments advanced by one who holds an opinion different from your own? How is it that I "spin" but you somehow avoid doing just that?
"Christianity happens to be the heritage of my country whether you like it or not." ...
It's Christmas With A Capital "C"
Post a Comment
<< Home