British Government to Investigate Catholic Church for Being Catholic
February 27th, 2008 at 06:04am Mark Noonan
Just astounding:
London, Feb 26, 2008 (CNA).- A committee in the British House of Commons will investigate Catholic schools following the Bishop of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” education, the Independent reports.
Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, had circulated a 66-page booklet instructing Catholic schools to stop “safe sex” education. Bishop O’Donoghue wrote, “The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and AIDS, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information.”
Additionally, he told the schools not to support charities that support abortion. He singled out Amnesty International, which recently renounced its neutrality on abortion and now favors the abortion of children whose mothers were raped in war zones.
The government’s investigating committee is chaired by Labour Party member Barry Sheerman, who is reportedly concerned the Church is adopting a “fundamentalist” line.
“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” he added. “We seem to have a shift in emphasis on the ground despite what the reasonable voices of the leadership are saying,” Sheerman said.
Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable? This is the thing which is really bothersome about this - a politician is going to bring pressure on a religious body to toe the government line because the politician has arrogated to himself the right to decide what is reasonable, and what isn’t. Now, if Mr. Sheerman thinks the Church wrong; that is fine. If Mr. Sheerman thinks that the Church is so wrong that it should not receive any government funding in Britain, then he may move a bill in Parlaiment to do just that. But to use a government committee as an attempt to browbeat the Church into doing the secularists’ will, that is an abominable infringement upon the rights of the people.
Chesterton said a very long time ago that, in the end, there is the Church, and her enemies - and Mr. Sheerman is demonstrating this to us in very stark terms. It isn’t enough for the Sheermans of the world to have all sorts of taxpayer funded programs to promote the leftist agenda - arrogantly self assured about their moral superiority, lefists insist that no one be allowed to dissent from their worldview. Britain, like the rest of Europe, is far gone down the road to socialist slavery - but this is the sort of world that the left wants to bring to the United States; a government controlled world of enforced political correctness. You want it, you can have it - all you have to do is “hope for change” in 2008, rather than learn and think.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, General Government, Religion, Social Issues
50 Comments
1. Education » British&hellip | February 27th, 2008 at 7:15 am
[…] And Rightly So! wrote an interesting post today on British Government to Investigate Catholic Church for Being CatholicHere’s a quick excerpt…of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” education, the Independent reports. […]
2. plainjane | February 27th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Not well versed in British law, but the article says these Catholic schools get a lot of taxpayers’ money. In the U.S. they would simply turn down the taxpayers’ money and practice as they wish provided they did not for example advocate an attempt to over throw of the very Constitution that gave the right to a group of people to establish a religion. The President’s primary oath is to protect the Constitution.
• Thomas Jefferson - Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
3. neocon | February 27th, 2008 at 8:22 am
If only we could require the goverment funded European Madrassas to quit preaching death to infidels.
I guess it’s easier to start with the Catholics
4. Pain | February 27th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable?–Noonan
Barry Sheerman, MP Huddersfield, Labour, is the chair of the Education and Skills Select committee that is bound by its duty to investigate these sorts of things. Since these matters involve taxpayers funds his committee would be the place for a resolution to be found in the law.
But to use a government committee as an attempt to browbeat the Church into doing the secularists’ will, that is an abominable infringement upon the rights of the people.
Great Britain unlike the US has an established church with Lords Spiritual sitting in Parliament. If the Crown so desired all other religions by Her Assent could be decreed illegal as they once were in the United Kingdom.
We, Ourselves, note that as far as the Law reads in England there is only one Church that can and does receive protection from the Crown and the respect of the Law and that is the Reformed Catholic Church of England.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
5. Almiranta | February 27th, 2008 at 9:47 am
If one were to remove tired old cliches from jane, she would be wordless.
Oh, if only….
Yes, she did drag out the one single letter in which any Founding Father ever said the slightest thing about a “wall of separation between church and state”—-evidently in the belief that Jefferson was such a delicate flower, so shy and retiring, that although HE personally believed that religion and the state should never share any territory at all, he was so intimidated by his peers that he not only never suggested that this belief be incorporated into the actual, ruling, document he was helping frame, he even kowtowed to the rest of them and voiced views about the role of a Creator in the development of this new nation.
As usual, the rabid Left has to rewrite history, and redefine the very characters of men, to try to shore up a feeble point. But it’s all in a days’ work for an antireligionist Socialist (sorry for the redundancy..)
But janie, janiejaniejanie, try to wrap your little head around THIS: Thomas Jefferson was writing about the colonies which were separating, or had already separated from England. So he could have written that the government should be run by fairies sprinkling pixie dust on everyone to bring them Hope, and Change (as seems to happening in our country now) and it would be totally irrelevant to the thread.
You see, janie, Thomas Jefferson’s opinion had nothing whatsoever to do WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY.
However, a big shout out to janie for remaining so steadfastly consistent. That is to say, clueless.
6. Fredrick Schwartz | February 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The in that vein Sheikh Almiranta why is this an issue for Americans at all what happens to Catholics in England? Where’s the true allegiance to the nation state or to religion uber alles?
7. Magnum Serpentine | February 27th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Its none of our business what the United Kingdom does with-in its borders. They can outlaw the Catholic church all they want its their nation they can do whatever they want.
8. Fredrick Schwartz | February 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Mazeltov! MS
Game. Set. Match.
Hey wait didn’t my cohort in crime Pain say that up the thread?? But still very well done MS.
9. Willem van Oranje | February 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Noonan
That’s simple. Because it is taxpayer’s money. Catholic Schools in the UK are part of Public Education. The Public sets the standards for what constitutes Public Education. Sheerman does NOT question Catholic Doctrine: what nonsense they teach in their churches is not the issue here, what they teach in their schools to non-catholic pupils with non-catholic taxpayer’s money is the issue.
10. Almiranta | February 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Hey, isn’t the guy who is trying to create suspicion of me by calling me a “Sheikh” the same guy who was whingeing about both “fear mongering” AND “xenophobia” in another post?
I called him on that there, too. Tsk tsk.
I’ll call him this, too: “Where’s the true allegiance to the nation state or to religion uber alles?”
Pure gibberish. It’s not even good radical Socialist cant. Hint: If you want to support your cause, you have to at least appear to make sense, at least every now and then. Diana can do this. Jane can’t. And you are slipping, very badly, from your original post on German Nazi fascism. Makes me think you cribbed it from someone who could spell and who could organize thoughts into some degree of coherence.
BTW, any intrusion into religious freedom by a nation which has a history of honoring that freedom is worth a comment. When that nation is as closely aligned to ours as is Great Britain, it is even more noteworthy. It’s just the quoting of a American Founding Father, regarding the American Constitution, in that context that was a little goofy.
Game, Set, Match?? It looks like your rules for tennis are as free-form and meaningless as your rules for debate and political discourse.
11. winnowhead | February 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I didn’t even have to read the article to answer this question. Mark obviously doesn’t know how public schools are structured in Britain.
But I’ll just add to the couple comments on the schools’ funding, by saying that this is the inevitable end result of any kind of voucher program. Courts have already ruled that faith-based institutions can’t prostelyze on the public dime (ie, homeless shelters or meal programs). Eventually, if vouchers come to pass, catholic schools that accept public money would be forced to stop what little religious instruction they have.
Which, by the way is how it should be. But I’m not going to argue that point with someone who doesn’t “believe” in the separation of church and state.
12. Almiranta | February 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
weeniehead, whether or not I “believe” in the “separation of church and state” is immaterial.
I do not believe it is a Constitutional requirement.
As a conservative, and as a Constitutionalist, I don’t think that my personal beliefs can or should be allowed to influence the actual wording of the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.
And the only support for the claims that there is a constitutional requirement for that “wall” is a letter written by one of the Founding Fathers, using terms and even ideas that were never incorporated into the actual document.
It’s hard, but important, to keep ones’ personal wants and wishes separate from what the actual law says.
13. Fredrick Schwartz | February 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Do i have to teach them everything??
Sheikh Al Mirantha [ bin Ebro] a play on words referring to the Umayyad Caliphate strong hold of Miranda Spain.
Under the law the C of E owes Rome nothing no even protection of their adherents. if british catholics don’t like living in anation where their is an established church where they are beholden to the scrutiny of those the taxpayers send to parliament then they should leave the UK and come to the US where Christians are merely annoyed and not openly “persecuted.”
14. Patrick McClure | February 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Whatever the UK wants to do within its borders regarding religion and religious institutions is their business. But it is important for us to watch. The anti-religous groups in the US often look to European actions as the ideal we should follow. Only 11 comments into the thread Winnohead is citing this action as proof of why we shouldn’t have vouchers in the US. In reading the original post I didn’t get the idea Mark wanted readers to e-mail this MP with a demand the MP not do this. I read it simply as a warning to watch out for this craziness happening in the US.
15. winnowhead | February 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Almiranta,
Precisely why I’m not arguing: it will devolve into an argument retread 500 times already, on this site alone. The fact is, though, you’re on the losing side of the argument. Even our conservative Supreme Court will not be breaking that wall down within their tenure. And despite differences between the UK and US on religious matters, the issue in this matter is the same - state funding of religion.
And by the way, the name-calling is very classy.
16. winnowhead | February 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Patrick,
I did not make that point. I don’t support vouchers because I feel it will inevitably weaken public education.
My point was not about refuting vouchers, it was coming from the exact OPPOSITE direction. I was simply stating why Mark’s sentiment will not be served by vouchers. So many people seem to support vouchers purely because they want to see their religion promoted. The cold, hard fact, is that the case law in this country will not allow religious instruction on the public dime. The parochial schools will be forced to become secular educational institutions, or refuse public money.
Agree or disagree, it’s a fact. Sorry.
17. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I see the libs bring up the letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists - and as usual take it out of context.
They do not include the purpose of the letter……The Danbury Baptists were worried that the STATE legislature was going to pass legislation making an “official religion” of their state.
The explanation of the letter shows that The LEGISLATURE shall be separate from the church - to protect the church from government and not the other way around. Religion can be a part of government - as far as the framework of new and existing laws AND NOT A THEOCRACY.
Another lie perpetuated by liberals is that if religion is considered in the creation of laws we would have a theocracy. Another bold-faced lie.
The second amendment is to give the people the freedom of religion and LIMIT the government in its RESTRICTION of religion.
What you libs fail to understand is that the Congress authorized THE BIBLE as a textbook in schools…..I believe they called it the Revolutionary Bible or something close to that - the name eludes me right now. Another thing Congress first did was to enact the positions of CHAPLIN for the House and Senate.
The so-called wall was for the protection of religion and not freedom FROM religion.
18. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Instead of complaining you conservatives should sit back for a second and thank your lucky stars that the Founders had the wisdom to erect a wall of seperation between church and state. Otherwise you could find similar things happening to your beloved bastions of superstition here in the States.
Oh BTW TiredofYourBullshit-
Still trotting out that weak arguement that the wall is a oneway street favoring religion? Try to support that fantasy if you can. OH OH OH they used to teach children to read by using the bible. What you tend to quickly gloss over Tiredofyourbullshit is that it was a teaching tool for reading comprehension and a cheap one at that because everyone at the time could get their hands on a bible. If they ever used it to teach children to be “good christians” then i’d say you may be approaching something that looks like a point. Unfortunately for you they did not. But let’s for a second say ok you’re right, then let’s start taxing churches. If they want to play then they must pay. I think we could all use some of that tax free cash that Pat Robertson, Ted Haggert and the late Jerry Falwell are rolling in don’t you?
19. Rana Quijotesca | February 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
bullshit (it’s a guys handle, so don’t censor it)… that is the first amendment…
The first amendment’s wording regarding religion is … ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
The part we are arguing about is the “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” part. This is a bit vague in the wording, but there are two major ways that one can read it. The first is to take the word “establishment” as meaning “the act of establishing,” which leads us to the common conclusion of the government not being able to establish a state religion. The other way is to take the word “establishment” as meaning “something established: a constituted order or system” or “institution” (which would turn “establishment of religion” into “religious institution”). That reading would lead us to to the conclusion that government can pass no law regarding a religious system or a religious institution. Which brings into suspect things like tax exemption of churches.
Now… We aren’t talking about America in this Thread, we are talking about England. Essentially… in England, Catholic Schools are teaching with the government’s money. The government should have to fund education contrary to the stated beliefs of government. Therefore, if Catholic Schools want to teach things contrary to the stated position of government, they should have to either forgo those funds given to them by government or not teach those things… It’s really as simple as that…
20. David B. Schmidt | February 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Rana,
When read in its entirety your first observation is the only correct one—that government will not “establish” a state or federal religion because the “thereof” refers back to the first part of the sentence or at least that is the way I read it.
Otherwise, I guess it could be understood as no taxes on churches (establishment of religion) and I would have to guess gym (free exercise) memberships? Hey, where can I get a good attorney and recover all of them fees I have paid over the years…
Just a thought.
21. Amanda | February 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Almiranta,
This is interesting:
“As a conservative, and as a Constitutionalist, I don’t think that my personal beliefs can or should be allowed to influence the actual wording of the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN.”
Does that extend to everything? Because you make an awful lot of arguments on this site in regards to a certain topic that indicate otherwise. You can’t have it both ways.
22. TiredofLibBullShit | February 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
NIPpie,
Obviously, you have never read the Jefferson letter in its entirety and known its true purpose.
I never said the wall favors religion, just protects religion from government - big difference moron.
Everyone could get a hold of the bible? Oh yeah, that’s why Congress authorized the printing of the Revolutionary Bible for specific use in school and supply it to students. If everyone had access to it, why was it necessary to print it. If the wall so existed to completely protect government from religion, why not print other books of the time?
If it was a teaching tool for reading comprehension, why not use it now in those school districts that would readily accept it?
You libs would never allow it. Freedom from religion and not freedom of religion. Why don’t you read the letter in its entirety and read the reason for the letter to begin with.
I know you won’t like what you find.
23. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Tideofbullshit-
I absolutely love, love, LUV what I find…..
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
– Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
Clear , concise, and straight to the point. But please, you keep trying to stroke that Danbury letter into something it clearly isn’t. I get such a kick out of watching you sweat.
24. Rana Quijotesca | February 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
David-
I’m just going on the Constitution on one side and dictionary.com on the other… if you don’t like it… there are some dead people you can complain to…
25. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Oh and btw TideOfBullsh**-
Why did Congress print the Bible of the Revolution (that’s what it’s properly called) in the first place and never, NEVER again mind you, commision another printing of the Bible?
Answer:
Up to that point it was the British who regulated the printing of Bibles. Charging handsome taxes on the purchaser to boot. This is something they did quite often . That means more than once TiredofThisBullshitArtist. So the Congress in a serious F-U the the British Government took matters into their own hands and commissioned a printed Bible primarily as an act of defiance. And the never commisioned another Bible again. 232 years and not one printed Bible since. That certainly is one religiously minded Congress I’ll tell you.
Oh and btw those Scrooges in Congress were in session on Christmas Day 1789, Congress didn’t even get around to recognizing Christmas as a legal holiday until ….drum roll please……. June 26th , 1870. For those mathamatically challenged readers out there thats 94 YEARS after the Declaration of Independance or 84 YEARS for those “strict Constitutional constructionists” out there.
Hmmmm I wonder if they had just plum forgot about Jesus’ Bday. The Congressional Christmas card arrived at his door nearly a hundred years late. Boy he must have been pissed huh?
Stay tuned and we can discuss how the pastors of the day called the Constitution a “Godless document” writtten by men who have “turned their backs to the Divine creator”…..
26. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
What use a Catholic School, but to teach Catholic principals and values? Isnt that the purpose of calling it Catholic?
When the state outlaws the churches teachings, then it is no longer a free state, but instead, a communist one.
27. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Sweating? Hardly.
Nice deflection NIP,
But we were talking about Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury baptists…..
”
entlemen, — 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, and 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 and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802.
At the time, the Danbuty Baptists were being persecuted because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut, an establishment by the state government. Jefferson responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty.
The Congregationalists wanted to use the power of government to force a belief. Jefferson stated the contrary and the Constution does as well. That is protection of religion from the exploitation of government. It is also the protection of the people from an established state religion.
Hence the wording of the first amendment CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, NOR FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
I am not advocating religion to use the power of government. I am simply pointing out that the Constitution in the Bill of Rights LIMITS the power of government. As you know, England used the power of government to force its religion on the people. The sole reason some people came to this county and also the reason for the first amendment clause.
Now, if you read my post carefully you would have seen that I did not advocate religion in government, but I did advocate that the government stop preventing individuals from worshipping freely, which has been implemented in state institutions. Individuals are using the power of government to stop individuals from expressing their religion even to themselves. That also should be wrong - protecting religion from government.
28. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
In RE: 25. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche
In 1789, during the same time when the First Amendment was written, then President Washington signed into law the Northwest Ordinance, which states, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
John Adams, who served as America’s first vice president and second president, stated, “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. … What a Utopia. What a Paradise would this region be. I have examined all (religions)? and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.”
Noah Webster, the “father of American scholarship and education,” stated, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. ? No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
Lastly, dispelling the myth that Thomas Jefferson never intermixed Christianity and government, in 1805 he was elected the first president of the Washington, D.C., public school board, under which schools used the Bible as a text for learning. Just three years after Jefferson left the school board and Washington, D.C., for retirement at Monticello, one principal reported to the board of trustees the progress his students made in reading and spelling, using the Bible as a text:
Fifty-five have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments and are all able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts’ Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five letters.
In fact, the first hundred colleges in America were founded upon Judeo-Christian tradition, belief and practice, including Yale, Princeton and Harvard, the last of which had the official motto, “For Christ and the Church.”
Why dont you lie some more?
29. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
If the Bible was endorsed by our Founders as a textbook, how can we not follow suit by doing the same? The fact is, to leave out of educative curricula the most influential text in Western civilization, including in American history, law and literature, is a blatant and biased withholding of proper public instruction
30. js | February 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“Probably,” Story also wrote, “at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, 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. An 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.”8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.9
This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education,10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that “aid one religion” or “prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that “aid all religions.” Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is “preferential” governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general.11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.12
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag1_user.html
31. Freedom1 | February 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Exactly, JS. American schools were established to teach the Bible and Christianity so I find it really ironic that atheists/socialists/leftists have been trying to completely eradicate the Bible from American education.
32. Freedom1 | February 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Mark,
This is simply evil. It’s just one more example of the rapid slide of formerly Great-, formerly Western Britain into the post-Christian, Islamicized socialist country it’s become. Sad and pathetic.
Neocon: “If only we could require the goverment funded European Madrassas to quit preaching death to infidels. I guess it’s easier to start with the Catholics.”
*****
Yeah, Catholics don’t behead people.
1) The UK taxpayers susidize Muslim polygamy - UK Pays Benefits for Muslim Polygamy
2) Sharia Would Create Legal Apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron - UK TimesOnline
3) Terror Trial Exposes Network of Muslim Terror Camps in Picturesque Rural England - AP
33. David B. Schmidt | February 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Rana,
My apologies if you took my posting wrong. I was agreeing with your view of the word “establishment” but attempting to note that only a good attorney could twist it in such a way as the second view and all too often that is exactly what they do.
Once again, my apologies if you misunderstood my posting and in closing I do not believe I will complain to any dead folks about this as I obviously have problems still with communicating with the living ;-)
34. FmrMarine | February 27th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
>>>>British Government to Investigate Catholic Church for Being Catholic<<<<<
GUILTY………I SAY GUILTY !
Those BA$!@RDS …..REALLY ARE………CATHOLIC !
(we all know they should be more like….muslems!)
35. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 27th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Freedom1-
“Yeah, Catholics don’t behead people.”
THEY DON’T?!?!?!?!
Apparently you’ve never opened up a history book my friend.
36. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 27th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
js-
“Why dont you lie some more?”
Hey, why don’t YOU find a legal document regarding the founding of this nation that says point blank the United States is a Christian nation and that there is no wall of separation between church and state.
Quit beating around the bush with these pathetic warmed over examples of this or that Founding Father’s personal view on religion. That’s the oldest trick in the Fundamentalist playbook. The Founders had plenty of time to put their personal views on religion into law but strangely they never did.
John Adams and the “utopian christian society” ?!?!?!??!
Tell me, where do we find that in the Constitution?
37. Mark Noonan | February 27th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
NiP,
Well, there is the fact that the peace treaty between the US and Britain in 1783 was done in the name of the Holy Trinity…not just a reference to God, but the Christian theology about God…if they weren’t Christians, you’d think they would have objected to that.
38. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
freedom1-
‘Exactly, JS. American schools were established to teach the Bible and Christianity so I find it really ironic that atheists/socialists/leftists have been trying to completely eradicate the Bible from American education.’
First off I’m not sure how that’s “ironic” unless you’re saying the educational system of this nation was establish by the Left. If thats the case then the Right should be ashamed of itself.
With regards to your assumption that the American educational system was devised to teach the bible I’ll borrow a line from Mr. Buckley,
“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”
39. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Mark-
“Well, there is the fact that the peace treaty between the US and Britain in 1783 was done in the name of the Holy Trinity…not just a reference to God, but the Christian theology about God…if they weren’t Christians, you’d think they would have objected to that.”
Read article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli and then get back to me. I particularly like the added phrase “NOT IN ANY SENSE”.
40. Freedom1 | February 28th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Speaking of Muslims beheading people…
Imam From Virginia Mosque Now Thought to Have Aided Al-Qaeda - WashingtonPost.com
41. Mark Noonan | February 28th, 2008 at 1:24 am
NiP,
Which one? Oh, you mean you weren’t aware there was more than one Treaty of Tripoli? Say it ain’t so - you’re supposed to know more than us conservatives!
And, guess what? Only in that one Treaty of Tripoli from 1796 is that passage to be found…and, furthermore, there is dispute as to whether article 11, the one you care about, was ever actually in the Arabic version of the treaty…meanwhile, as I said, our nation was founded, by treaty, in the name of the Holy Trinity…
42. Freedom1 | February 28th, 2008 at 1:27 am
NiP—”Read article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli and then get back to me. I particularly like the added phrase ‘NOT IN ANY SENSE’.”
———–
Mark’s already answered that charge…Link:
Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
And the peace treaty between the United States and Britain ending the Revolutionary War? Proclaimed, and I quote, “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” Not just acknowledging God, but acknowledging the Christian conception of God. And the first sentence after that? It says that Divine Providence moved his Britannic Majesty to seek peace! And the signatures were affixed following, “Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.”
Our Lord, is Jesus.
Additionally:
A 1783 treaty with Sweden was signed “in the year of our Lord”.
A 1787 treat with Morocco was done, “in the name of Almighty God”. It also notes that the date of the treaty, year of Hegira 1200, began on on the 28th of June in the year of Our Lord, 1786.
A 1794 treaty with Britain amended “in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred ninety six.”
A 1795 treaty with Algiers? No mention of the US not being a Christian nation.
A 1796 treaty with Tripoli? Makes the mention you note, but in article 11.
A 1797 treaty with Tunis? Opens with the statement, “God is infinite”. It also states, I quote, “and the most distinguished and honored President of the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah”. The Messiah = Jesus. It was signed in Tunis, “in the year of the Christian era…”
A 1799 treaty with France, completed in “Anno Domini 1800″. Do I have to translate “Anno Domini” for you?
An 1805 treaty with Tripoli? Modifies the 1797 treaty and DOES NOT say that the US is not founded on the Christian religion - it merely notes that the US bears no enmity towards the Moslem religion.
An 1815 treaty with Algiers repeats the formulation of the 1805 treaty with Tripoli - merely noting that the US bears no enmity towards the Moslem religion.
An 1816 treaty with Sweden was done “In the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity”.
An 1816 treaty with Algiers (a renewal of the older treaty) once again merely states the US bears no enmity towards Islam.
An 1818 treaty with Britain done in “the year of Our Lord”.
An 1822 treaty with Britain done in “the year of Our Lord”.
An 1822 treaty with France done in “A.D. 1822″. Shall I translate “A.D.” for you?
An 1824 treaty with Algiers, notes that it is the “Christian year” 1824.
An 1824 treaty with Russia done, “in the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity”.
An 1824 treaty with Columbia done, “In the name of God, Author and Legislator of the Universe”.
An 1825 treaty with the (now-defunct) Federation of Central America was done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1826 treaty with Denmark done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1827 treaty with Sweden and Norway done, “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity”.
An 1827 treaty with Britain done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with three of the Hanse Republics done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Mexico done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Prussia done, “in the year of Our Lord”.
An 1828 treaty with Brazil done, “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity”.
Shall I go on? I’ll let you keep your one-off, if that is what you want…but if you want to say that one treaty shows we’re not a Christian nation, then I’ve got a lot more that show we are…
Source: Library of Congress
43. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am
LMAO!!!
You radical Christian Fundamentalists are just priceless. All that work to try to inject your religion fanatacism into this government and all you’ve got is “in the year of our lord” ?!?!?!?
Oh they only wrote that the US is not in anyway a Christian nation in the the original version of the Treaty and not again but hey guess what…..they wrote it, in plain english, with good black iron gall ink, on very nice parchment.
Hey Freedom1, Mark, or anyone for that matter, where is the founding legal document that states in plain english legal binding “the official religion of the United States is the Christian religion”
They didn’t even put “in God We Trust” on their currency. They did choose a much more appropriate motto though,
“E Pluribus Unum”
Do I need to translate it for you Freedom1?
Hey how about showing me the section in the Constitution that say’s America is a christian nation.
You’re all “strict constructionists” and literalists so you should be able to produce the exact line with no trouble. Don’t pussy foot around let’s have it.
44. js | February 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
39. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Read article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli
And this is all you have?
Ill suggest that your ignorance excedes your imagination at a minimum.
The United States indeed was not “founded on the Christian religion”. In order for that to have happened, the Church would run the Government or its constitution would require its administration to adhere to the will of the Church (much akin to the conditions in Europe which were rejected in America). This is in direct contrast with the fact that the Tripoli Govenance “IS” founded on the Islamic religion, and such religion is strictly adhered too in both daily governance and its jurisprudence.
That does not claim, in any way, shape or fashion, that the United States did not abide by nor emulate Christian morals and standards, nor encourage the belief in such.
Only a moron could assume such ever happened.
45. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Js-
“That does not claim, in any way, shape or fashion, that the United States did not abide by nor emulate Christian morals and standards, nor encourage the belief in such.”
Are you brain damaged my friend? Thats exactly what it says. It states that the laws and governance of the United States IS NOT based in Christian teaching or doctrine. Merely being a Christian isn’t good enough.
Please don’t waste my time.
Tell me is adultery illegal?
How about working on a sunday?
What about making a graven image?
Hey is coveting your neighbor’s possesions grounds for inprisonment? If so then there goes the capitalistic free market economy.
When was the last time someone was arrested for taking the Lord’s name in vain?
How about worshipping the Great Spagetti Monster instead of God? How many years will you do in a Federal institution for that?
So all you have is murder, stealing private property, and lying in a court of law as your basis that we have Christian roots in our laws. Last time I checked every country had laws against these activities.
46. Mark Noonan | February 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
NiP,
Nice try, but there’s also all those mentions of the Trinity…and, at any rate, is you on the left who desperately cling on to that Article 11 of the Tripoli treaty (which is, as I said, under dispute) as your “proof” that we are not a Christian nation…
47. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Deparately cling Mark?
You pit your flowery reference of the “Trinity” or an “in the year of or lord” against a flat out statement saying what we are and are not based on as a nation?
Who’s the desparate one here?
Besides Mark you have completely laid down in the face of my challange to find the reference to this Christian nation in the Constitution.
48. Diane Tomlinson | February 28th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Deleted - off topic.
49. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Diane Tomlinson: Know what gentlemen? None of this matters because America is not a Christian nation now, today, the next to last day of February 2008 Current Era.
I have to say your post conjured up strong images of the following analogy: Kurt Vonnegut is to Billy Pilgrim as Diane Tomlinson is to Mark Noonan. It’s like viewing time as a landscape rather than a vector, or cause and effect outside of chronology. I’m not sure whether I should be impressed or appalled. Not that it matters, lol!
Poo-tee-weet
50. mda | March 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Gentleman let logic circumvent emotional convictions. True there is much controversy and debate on the Arabic translation into English concerning Article 11 of the Treaty. Some say Barlow’s Arabic was flawed and the English version is not consistent with the Arabic version. But you see although this argument may have historical merit it is illrelevant to the United states ratification of the treaty. Even if one suggest problems with article 11 look at all the great legal and political minds who read Article 11 of the Treaty yet still agreed to ratify it. These were the founding fathers of the country. We give them so much credit, respect, and honor their judgement about forming and preparing the great document, the Constitution and now we hundreds of years later dispute their reasons for ratifying a treaty with Article 11. Well, some facts about the Treaty today are still unknown and untold but for sure with this fact there is no dispute: Had these great men after reading the treaty decided that article 11 was not consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution could not they just removed it? There is no historical reasons or justifications they have ever been presented that shows that the US government had to include the Article in order for the Treat to be accepted by Morocco and passed by Congress. In fact many of the earlier Articles that Morocco wanted in the Treaty were deleted until the US government was satisfied. So again I ask the question if being a christian nation was of utmost importance to Congress would not they just removed Article 11 long before it came before Congress for ratification? I think Article 11 was placed there because it gave the founding fathers an opportunity to do what they should have done in the original constitution. I think Article 11 is a left behind sign and a message to the future children of American that this government was established as a safe haven for all men regardless of religion.