freshwest
freshwest's JournalJefferson's Wall of Separation Letter
A commentary on it:
Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state..."
From the letter itself:
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. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.) 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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Catholics as individuals or as a group, can believe anything they want under the US Constitution, the framework of laws under which progressives, liberals and Democrats define their interactions with government and with each other in many ways.
We are stuck with the First Amendment, too. Which as Obama and others have said, includes the right to freedom from any religion in our dealings with the state. The RCC can believe anything they want, long as they do not meddle in civil life to overturn democratically elected government and laws.
Yes, they may want to. And nothing we say here is going to change their minds as they are not listening to us. They have their own little world.
Membership in the RCC is voluntarily once a person becomes of age, or if their parents are not a member. Even so, a child can be brought up in it and still consider it bullshit. The RCC should be strictly regulated in any activity like any corporation in their dealings with the public or the government.
The influence of those groups is too much, we have to work together to have secular government. AFAIK, anyone who is a Democrat and believes in the party platform, is in effect defying the RCC even if they give it lip service.
People just want to see something nice. If not cat pictures and good news stories, they find the Pope being nice to be happy. Supporters of Obama enjoy the celebration of the work that he does for us, which is secular in nature.
The Pope is news, if he does something people like, they will comment on it just like they might say that' Rachel Maddox and Bill Maher are great!' And to me, the Pope is not a religious figure as much as a VIP. Because I don't believe in what the Pope is reputed to be, and I'm sure many people who like those threads, don't either.
If one does or does not live their life by the rules set by a church, they are welcome to it, and it has nothing to do with DU. I am not going to turn RCC because the Pope did something nice, anymore than I would have become an aristocrat by admiring Princess Diana's work to promote the removal of land mines or liking the work of Prince Charles to promote organic food.
That's why the threads don't bother me, I'm not going to stop being a secular humanist and a working class person by not snarling whenever these VIPs walk by on DU. My belief in equality is so strong, diversity doesn't scare me. I know that there is good and bad in each person, so I try to encourage the good.
You have a right to be mad at the RCC and despise the Pope if you please. What we don't do, is despise other DUers who are not at the same place with you or me.
We still need to have a discussion of what religions are or are not doing to our secular government. Our biggest problem as liberals and progressives is that these groups have millions or billions of followers. They DO interfere with out government. Attacking them doesn't help, but strengthing our secular institutions does. That's where my energy goes.
That's JMHO.
Oh, and look! She wears her cross outside her clothes for all the world to see, but
doesn't feel any love inside of her for the people he commanded his follower to help. And all the while she denies the gleanings of the field from the poor and the alien.Cow of Bashan that she is, she did this to have more, more, more. Didn't she swindle an old couple out of land worth millions?
What a piece of.. work.
I'll look it up, but he's a great guy. All I found is this:
Washington Governor expresses concern on Tibet crisisby Yeshe Choesang, The Tibet Post International - 06 June 2013
Dharamshala: Governor Washington Jay Inslee expressed his deep concern for the situation in Tibet and hoped that the legitimate concern of the Tibetan people is addressed.
According to the Central Tibetan Administration, Inslee said this while interacting with Mr Tashi Namgyal, member of Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, during the Governor's Reception honouring the Washington State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs, the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs, the Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs and the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs.
Governor Inslee was a member of the US House of Representative representing the Ist Congressional District. He had spoken in favor of House resolution 1077 calling on the Chinese government to end its crackdown in Tibet and to enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to resolve the problem of Tibet.
He was a member of the bipartisan Congressional delegation led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala in 2008.
http://www.thetibetpost.com/en/news/tpi-short-takes/3438-washington-governor-expresses-concern-on-tibet-crisis
I see no mention of his Inslee's beliefs other than he had a high liberal rating despite being on board with Clinton and his love of the environment. He has a lot of labor support and acted quickly to protect women's rights as soon as he was elected from hospitals that were being sold to religious groups and trying to avoid giving women choice. And he ran on expanding Medicaid and the ACA.
VIDEO: A lot of love in that family. Loved his DNC speech of his famiy story:
Julián Castro's DNC Keynote Speech - Elections 2012
Published on Sep 4, 2012
Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio delivered the keynote speech Tuesday night at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the same speech that propelled then-Senator Barack Obama to fame in 2004.
It appears they crossed the line into the Russian sector of the Arctic Circle.
The Arctic Circle borders the territory of the USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Russia. (Greenland, on the map, still belongs to Denmark.)
All the nations are increasing their fleets in the area as it is easier to travel now, to protect their rights. Russia has more ports there than any other, and is probably protecting its sovereignty. Several nations are sending war ships into the Arctic to make sure no one takes advantage of less ice to nab resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean#Extent_and_major_ports
Russia has the right to do this whether we like it or not, as far as I can tell. I posted this on another thread, but edited it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014615671#post44
Here is the parent thread:
Russia 'finds drugs' on Greenpeace ship, new charges loom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014615671#op
Could be wrong. You can look at the map to decide. Consensus on the thread was that the arrests were bogus, but maritime law may be a bit different.
JMHO.
The choices didn't fit. But I'd say no, it won't.
DISCLAIMER: I am not Catholic, nor have I ever been one. I do not attend their church, know their prayers or understand the heirarchical nature of their organization. They would likely not consider me a 'real' Christian, but I don't mind. Some I have known have proven to be worthy friends and allies in causes I care about.But the RCC can't become liberal or progressive in the social sense, despite good policies and actions. Regarding abortion, their position will not change, just as their position on the death penalty, euthanasia and extended medical care for prolonging life when a person is terminal.
The positions expressed are that the timing of all of those events are in God's hands and man should not interfere with that process. They do not approve of the termination of a disabled child or euthanasia to end the suffering of terminally ill persons. They do not want to see the disabled at birth starved to death, in order to spare the cost of their care.
There may be exceptions to all of this, as I only know what I read in the news of several kinds and those I know who have advocated in defense of care for the vulnerable.
Women dying from the issues in a pregnancy is natural and not an excuse for terminating the life of the child, or so it's been claimed. There may be variations on this, but I think that's the gist of their philosophy.
That all that can be done to save a life that is not terminal, save abortion, is okay. This has resulted in some evil being done.
IIRC, the last Pope to die was allowed to pass with no heroic measures to prevent his death, so they kept firm.
In the past, they protested the death penalty, nuclear weapons, the SOA and the wars consistently.
Nor will their positions on emigrants, education or health care change, but they will continue to push for more privatization of social services to bring them the needed funds for what they consider their mission, AFAIK.
Here is a link on the surprising positions of the Catholic church in Saltillo, Mexico regarding gays, lesbians and legalizing abortion. The Pope said regarding homosexuals, he has no right to judge them:
https://northernbarbarians.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/mexican-bishop-tells-gays-lesbians-the-church-is-your-home/
Good night.
I've always hated media conversations that have gone on decades - way back - on acceptable levels of
unemployment in this country. All said by smart alecs who are employed.It's one of the most brutal forms of class warfare there is, to deny the energy and talent of those willing and able to work. It is dehumanizing and tells them that but for the luck of a straw vote they had no say in, they are to be discarded.
For those who have jobs, it's a constant source of fear as the existance of the unemployed is fertile field for bigotry and accepting discrimination against those without work and divides people. It's a potent threat to the survival of anyone who is not the beneficiary of inheritance or aren't in the investor class.
Reagan said while running for the office of president:
'A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours...'
The emotional point he is making there, that is true. He was attacking Carter based on semantics, not being upfront about the actions of his sponsors, the fossil energy companies who were determined to get Carter out of office because of his energy plan:
National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.
April 20, 1977
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7373
They manufactured a crisis to make Carter's policies seem ineffective. The GOP also manufactured a huge PR campaign of right wing religion, homophobia, sexism, and racial bigotry. They opposed employing minorities in jobs held by white men for the most part. Carter's policies on civil rights in that area were changing the face of work environments and equality was going up and not down. They decided they had to stop him since inequality is how wealth is transferred from one group to another in a game of winners and losers. But there is never any peace.
Reagan made a permanent loss of jobs for millions of Americans in the working class and attacked unions all the way through his tenure. Meanwhile, the media joyfully sang the chorus of 'Greed is Good.'
The pundit class had their cavalier assessment of the necessity of people being kept unemployed for controlling inflation. But they were only speaking for Wall Street. This is in contrast to the policies of President Roosevelt:
Chasing Full Employment
By LOUIS UCHITELLE - February 12, 2006
President Franklin D. Roosevelt put full employment on the table in 1944, declaring that having a job was a basic human right. During World War II, the nation actually achieved full employment. And twice since then, Congress has considered bills that would have guaranteed a job at decent pay for every adult who wanted work. That doesn't mean everyone; lots of people don't want to work. But in a society that legislated full employment, the government would be the employer of last resort if the private sector came up short of good jobs for those who wanted them.
These are radical concepts today. Fear of another depression prompted the first debate, in the mid-1940's, and a steep recession contributed to the second, in the mid-1970's. Both bills, as finally enacted, failed to achieve their original goal. And as inflation rose in the late 70's, government shifted to fighting it, often at the expense of employment.
The old-timers who tried to legislate full employment saw it not as a desirable market phenomenon - the spinoff of a robust economy - but as a civil right, on a par with the right to vote. That is still the view of a few economists, including Amartya Sen at Harvard, whose writings on famine, poverty and other injustices won him the Nobel in economics in 1998.
"I know that people get scared of inflation and Wall Street is a natural ally in this fear," Mr. Sen said. "But the real costs of unemployment are very high. Having a job confers not only income, but social recognition and self-respect, which comes with having the sense of being wanted by society..."
A lot more on competing views of economics at the link here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12view.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
i will say it again; there is great profit to be made off the dehumanization and theft of wealth from others. We cannot have a just society without addressing the root causes of inquality.
JMHO.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 11:36 PMNumber of posts: 53,661
