1. I personally believe the state and federal governments have moved beyond their constitutional mandates.
2. I fully believe it is time to take the "peoples" republic back and return it to it's rightful owners, the people.
3. I've learned it is best to check out what it is you choose to support prior to making a full commitment to it.
On 4-16-09 we attended the first Tallahassee Teas party and wrote our observations accompanied by a warning here:
In short our warning was that this movement needs to be non-partisan in nature of it is destined to fail.
A speaker or two at today's tea party mentioned that very concept. Which was then totally ignored by speakers who not only promoted a far religious right conservative agenda, but either got a number of facts wrong or twisted them in such a manner as to meet their own "radical" agenda.
And it is here that I would mention that I find it personally reprehensible that parents would use children to hold signs promoting an agenda the children do not understand, yet! That in my mind is using children in a manner, that cute as it may seem is dangerous. I have no doubt however that after a thorough brainwashed upbringing that they to will parrot the twisted philosophy of their parents.
Since the sound system was not working well I will primarily focus on the speech given by Preston Scott of WFLA's morning show who not only contributed to turning today's event turning into a morality play that, despite it's call for bipartisanship, demonized any but those that held to the beliefs of the far right, but who also attempted to turn a discussion of the constitution into a "new Testament" lesson.
Keep in mind please, that I applauded Preston Scotts last Tea Party speech as being spot on. But then maybe the number of protesters in Washington have given courage to those who would repress you even further in the name of government revolt, to come out of the closet.
Do not get me wrong I have no problem with demonizing the government and politicians. As long as it it done fairly and equitably. Obama is not the root of our problems. Politicians from both parties, republican and democrat alike, liberal and conservative, have been guilty of corruption and feeding at the pig trough of taxpayer money for years. They may register as a member of a certain party, but once elected succumb to enticements of power and greed with alarming adaptability.
But the fault must lays with us, "We The People". It is us who ignored the warning given by an Irish statesman, the "price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." After the constitutional convention a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "what is that you have given us?"
"A republic Madam," Franklin replied, " If you can keep it."
It was given to us, "we the people" and we have been poor stewards. Preferring to engage in apathy, ignorance and apathy as long as our creature comforts could be maintained by we ourselves feeding at the trough of debt.
So the blame falls on us "we the People" because we of all stripes and persuasions have allowed the politicians of all stripes and persuasions to rape us without consequence. This has been an ongoing theme of this fight. We can not implement a solution until we ourselves become honest about the problem.
As to the lessons in christian morality that were preached, any who read this who are honest will have to admit that in many instances christian morality has been situational depending on how it applies to our own personals needs and wants.
However that is another discussion. Let let us look at why our founders felt the separation of church and state was important:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:Benjamin Franklin understood the nature of man when he wrote in his Pre-Ratification speech:
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.Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a recorded conversation surrounding the meaning of the 1st Amendment being offered the following was said:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.Madison, who often wrote, several years after ratification of the Constitution in 1789, of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."  This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.
We could also examine the oft over looked "treaty of tripoli" signed on nov 4 late 1796. Washington was president:
"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."Common Law
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
All this is not to say that our founders were not Christians or men of Christian beliefs. Many of them were. However there are also references to a number of them being free masons and diest's ( a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.)
As intelligent and well versed in biblical verse as our forefathers were , it it would seem that when they agreed on the wording of the first amendment,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . .That they meant exactly that! Furthermore had they had the new testament foremost in mind when writing the constitution and the declaration of the independence wherein it is stated that,
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —would it not be a glaring omission, based on their own words, to leave slavery legal? Which of course our forefathers did? Not necessarily as there are various passages in the New Testament that would appear to sanction slavery, See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
Obviously the forefathers were right to take the government out of the religious argument. Or we may still have slavery and not have a constitution to this day.
Moral arguments can be made divorced from Christianity. It is not Christianity that leads to freedom.
It is freedom that allows one to practice Christianity and/or any other spiritual pursuit of choice.
Therefore in all arguments regarding taking this country back and restoring, or maybe we should say achieving, the intent of the constitution discussions should be devoid of religion and partisanship
and be soley focused on freedom and liberty. Without which we have none of the other.
We currently have a corporate/governance alliance devoted to oppression and class differentiation. It is the result of the inaction of us all regardless of party affiliation.
If we want it back the Declaration of Independence outlines clearly how to achieve that end. Stop kissing the collective asses of the politicians and "TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK".
No negotiation. No pleading or begging. Demand what was once ours and has since been robbed from us.
But we can only do that when we move beyond the myths and illusions that we have been taught to believe and begin to embrace our own truths!Add to Technorati Favorites