FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

While reading an ongoing debate on the thread of a post at another blog, the following statement was made:

“First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad that people consider this worthy of debate. The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter? This intenet is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate?”

Now, the First Amendment states in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Apparently the intent of this amendment is not clear enough.
About those framers or founding fathers? We don’t need to guess at their intent since some of them had weighed in and left a record of their opinion.

In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg . . . . Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

John Adams wrote in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the... It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

My favorite “framer” is Benjamin Franklin. If you have never read his autobiography, you are missing some great reading and a colorful and detailed account of life in “those days.” He was a vegetarian although he would sometimes eat fish which he seemed to be very fond of. He also had within his circle proponents of deism. With his beliefs in natural law, Franklin would probably have had more in common with “tree huggers” than church goers. Here are his own words:

"You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”

Benjamin Franklin was also the person who encouraged Thomas Paine (a lifelong Deist) to print his views in what would become the now famous work, “Common Sense.” At the time, those who wanted to declare independence from Britian were in the minority. Many of those at Congress were wealthy landowners who feared losing the protection and trade of England. “Common Sense” came out in pamphlet form and has been credited with turning the tide toward full independence.

Even George Washington had a tolerant view. After he became the president he was approached repeatedly by those worried about their right to practice according to their own religious beliefs. Over and over again, Washington reiterated his belief that, as long as everyone behaved as good citizens, their religious beliefs were not an issue for the government, but were only a matter for each individual and God. These statements were similar to his earlier comments to Tench Tilghman in March of 1784, when he was trying to hire workmen for Mount Vernon, noting that "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."

It is no mystery why our founders would want to separate church and state; after the abuses by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the English were pretty fed up with politics corrupted by religion and visa versa.

History is not events frozen in time; it is more a living record of our lives, flowing through time and leaving imprints behind as it goes. Our founding fathers were not all saintly, pious men totally focused on this country’s independence.

In fact, they were not so unlike Americans today with events unfolding as they struggled to make a living and care for their families.. Some were certainly religious men and I’m sure we would recognize the conservatives, but we would also recognize the liberals. They argued about religion, politics, taxes and government structure. These guys were radicals and rebels, mature men and incorrigible rascals. They were us 200+ years ago, living and dying in America.

AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN!

Ann of God

I can fool you once and I can fool you twice and there's no shame on me, you Godless Liberal, says Ann Coulter. Ann weaseled out of felony election fraud charges in 2006 even though the evidence that she used someone else's address when she registered to vote in Palm Beach County, Florida is there in black and white. An "unofficial" phone call from a FBI boyfriend about a "stalking" story bullied the local authorities into dropping the case. No such calls were made concerning the voting rights of tens of thousands of other Floridians illegally deprived of their voting rights, but then few of them wear black pointed hats and fly around on brooms.

OK, so that's water under the bridge, but it seems she's done it before. Ann of God voted in Connecticut in 2002 and 2004 although she lived in Manhattan, illegally using her parents' address. I guess that's the kind of behavior that shows "Liberals" just how bad it is to be Godless.

Private investigator and blogger Joseph Culligan wrote to State of Connecticut Staff Attorney informing him of her misdeeds and Theodore Bromley confirmed that a registered Connecticut voter must list “a residence address in the state where you actually live. It is not enough to claim a relative’s house where you may visit.” So far the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission is waiting for someone to bring charges under oath, but apparently nobody is sufficiently Godless to take Ann of God. Ann can only offer hysterical mockery of Culligan and Bromley, who have never met according to the New York Daily News,

“Do they have private parties where one of them pretends to be a real attorney and the other one dresses up like me?”

No, and they probably don't hold Black Masses or dance naked aournd bonfires either, but she continues her obsession with mysterious stalkers by accusing them of it, adding:

“Tell them both thanks for the flowers and also to please stop killing my pets.”

Of course that's falsely accusing them of a felony, which is a serious thing to do, when you do it to a lawyer and State's attorney, but thus do the Godly speak.

Of Sean Hannity, who apparently does not want her on his show, she offers:

“Being [Hannity’s] love slave, I had no choice but to comply. Won’t somebody please rescue me from this awful dungeon [where Hannity] keeps me locked up?”

Actually I had pictured a less erotic prison cell for and perhaps, suggests the Daily News, some 9/11 widow who takes umbrage at being called a witch and harpy by this witch and harpy would like to step up. If I had been accused by her of rejoicing in my spouses' death, I would be happy to do the honors, but then I'm "Godless," you know.

Words about Words

Am just responding to recent remarks about the difference between the written and spoken word. Plato's dialogue Phaedrus is suggestive about the key distinction we make: the written word seems to have lost its connection to the body and soul of the person who originated it; another way to put this is to say that the moment a writer sets something down in "hard" form, he or she loses interpretive control of whatever statements have been made. Rightly or wrongly--and Plato's speaker is usually taken to be asserting rightly--we privilege the spoken word, the "utterance," because we believe it to be more closely connected with some kind of inner truth, or truth-to-consciousness, and because we believe we can effectively control our meaning in the presence of other people. It has been cogently argued that everything we say about writing is also true about speaking (Jacques Derrida's critiques begin from that insight), but our motivation to privilege speaking is so strong that it's almost impossible to break.

From a reader/listener's perspective, I think it's fair to say that we would usually respond differently to the same words (especially contentious ones) in writing and in the presence of a live speaker. Part of the difference may be accounted for by basic civility -- not wanting to seem rude or to hurt other people's feelings, etc. But as Plato and his modern critics suggest, the impulse to treat speech and writing differently is ultimately more philosophical than that.

The blogosphere complicates all this -- you have a huge potential audience, many of whom may be genuinely interested in what you write and whose various interpretations might well prove enlightening; but of course, there are also a fair number of sociopaths who seem more interested in giving their demons a workout than in anything resembling communication. Such people obviously revel in the starkness of the written word, and enjoy exploiting the absence of the originator. Best to ignore them altogether, in my view.

CITY OF ICE!

I don't really like the cold and, given a choice, this bird would fly even further south, but I do find the abilityof these special artisans to create such complex beauty out of bits of snow and ice truly awe-inspiring.

As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words."













Several places around the globe create ice hotels like these in Alaska and Canada where you can get a room and a stiff drink, all at a pretty stiff price, but perhaps worth the cost for a once in a lifetime experience.

Many towns in colder climates have ice festivals that produce some amazing works of art like this sculpture in Alaska. Look closely and you will see not only the animals on top of the ice, but other creatures swimming in the ice!

But, in terms of complexity and sheer magnitude, Harbin, China has no equal! In a town in Northern China where the temps stay below freezing half the year, these hardy souls have found a way to make the ice come to life.

Just breathtaking, isn't it?

OCTO'S WELLSPRING OF INSPIRATION

Explaining My Last Post

I perhaps seemed a bit cranky with my last post. I perhaps seemed to be a bit down on the male sex. Actually – nothing could be further from the truth.

My last post was a satirical, passive aggressive swipe NOT at men but at EXTREME, man-hating radical feminists.

I am NOT a radical feminist. In fact, I am a mild-mannered feminist – believe it or not! Let me clarify – in my personal definition – one is a feminist if one believes that women have the right to live their lives equitably with men and if one actively supports women in doing so. By this definition – men may be feminists.

Now there are those who would criticize such a definition for not being politically specific “enough” – yes, well, but that is where the trouble can begin to start. When we start to define a philosophical point of view too narrowly, drawing the boundaries a bit too snugly – we begin to become exclusive. We begin to become intolerant of those that do not meet our narrow criteria. To my way of thinking – this can begin to become counter-productive. Of course all feminists are not going to entirely agree about this or that. Do Democrats all always agree? Republicans? Of course not. Humans & human nature are far too complex. What is important is to keep in mind our common goals for a better, fairer world.

And this is where my frustration with EXTREME radical feminism begins. The term “radical feminism” basically refers to a brand of feminism that believes that it is not possible to work within patriarchy in order to bring about change. And therefore the patriarchy & the patriarchs (you men) need to be replaced by women. This has always made me a bit nervous as it seems to be privileging one sex over another. Just a different sex this time. Dangerously close to being an example of reverse sexism. However, I’ve usually been able to at least philosophically engage some of its arguments in the spirit of moving the whole issue of women’s equality forward.

BUT – what I am encountering more & more in the blogosphere is a very extreme form of this philosophy. A blatantly MAN HATING strain. And, as if this wasn’t bad enough, many of these women are also rude & unkind to any woman who dares to disagree with them. I have seen this occur in more than one comment thread on more than one blog. They make fun of us women who believe men can be part of the solution rather than the problem. They ridicule us women who enjoy sex with men. (Some claim to be “political lesbians” – which means that they loathe sex with men but feel no desire sexually for women so then, I guess, are largely asexual except for masturbating - maybe. I have no problem with such a lifestyle choice – but I resent their implications about the rest of us who are desiringly heterosexual as if some how that means we are selling out feminism).

Such ill will towards their fellow women distresses me beyond words. I’m not kidding. It angers & saddens me. With such behavior we are making each other the problem, the enemy. This is nuts! And what the hell does such an exclusive club accomplish? It is counter-productive.

It makes me angry – so angry that I feel myself thinking awful things about these extreme radical feminists which means I am going against my own principles of always trying to be supportive of other feminists.

Now – lest anyone think these are just yelling, ignorant hotheads – no they are not. What is unsettling is that many of them are clearly well-educated & know how to frame an argument well.

Finally, I have been readings feminist blogs on & off for a couple of years. Whenever screaming & yelling begins – whether between men & women or women & women – I have often wondered whether the free & open forum for the expression of thought that the blogoshpere provides is really of benefit to feminist discourse in general. I worry sometimes that the anonymity afforded by the blogosphere allows for so much bad behavior that it is dragging such discussions & their participants down into an irretrievably polarizing muck.

SOOOO – I do not want to eat males – squid or human. Some of my favorite creatures are male – always have been & I hope always will be. I hope my satirical angst caused no offense.

THE NEW LEPER COLONY: FOR WOMEN ONLY

(O)CT(O)PUS is not done inking the aquarium this week.  I did a post-mortem follow-up and found this comment posted by the same author who inspired my last ink-the-aquarium tirade:

[Were] pregnant teenagers allowed in school when you were a student?  I know they were not.  I don't believe in that, because it tells other girls that it's okay to get pregnant. I don't know how you feel about that, but I disagree with it. It's not okay for teenage girls to get pregnant, and I feel fortunate that I was able to teach my girls the difference between right and wrong.  Unfortunately there are far too many parents who don't realize what's going on in our public school system, and there are many others who simply don't care.  As to teenage girls who get pregnant, I believe they should homeschool [sic]. Gayle | Homepage | 01.03.09 - 11:18 am

A few questions: Why should pregnant teenaged girls be banned from public schools but not the little dicks who caused their pregnancies?  Why should young women always bear the brunt of ridicule and social ostracism for the crime of two-to-tango but not their co-conspirators in passion?  Will parents of pregnant teenaged girls get a school tax rebate after their daughters are banned from public school?  After all, those parents will no longer receive value for money.

In other news, I congratulate the Palin family on the birth of their new grandson, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, 7 pounds 4 ounces, born on December 28, 2009.  Dragon Lady has decreed: Bristol Palin, daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, may now return to school.

In other news, I found these stories:

Taleban threaten to blow up girls’ schools if they refuse to close
The Taleban have ordered the closure of all girls’ schools in the war-ravaged Swat district and warned parents and teachers of dire consequences if the ban is flouted.
In an announcement made in mosques and broadcast on radio, the militant group set a deadline of January 15 for its order to be obeyed or it would blow up school buildings and attack schoolgirls. It also told women not to set foot outside their homes without being fully covered.

“Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society,” Shah Dauran, leader of a group that has established control over a large part of Swat district in the North West Frontier Province, declared this week.

Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.  The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.  But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.

Cannibalistic Feminism

Apparently I am not to be trifled with. I am capable of unprovoked acts of aggression. I am sleek, fast & slippery. I can even turn myself red – yes, as in color – at the least little provocation or even just for the hell of it. I possess some of the strongest visual capabilities of any creature on the planet & I have a massive brain. AND – as if all of these attributes weren't impressive enough – I am prone to cannibalistic behavior.  Yes, I am – A SQUID.

Yesterday I watched a National Geographic special on Squids & was truly amazed at the awesomeness of my Squidness - almost humbled by NG's particular footage of the Humboldt variety of squid. Such an amazing, still largely unknown creature of the very deep:



I also learned a bit more about my cousin OCTOPUS – impressive – also sneaky, deadly, & inky – but, dear (O)CT(O)PUS – I win the prize, I believe, for ruthlessness 'cause I eat my own kind . . . As I said – don't trifle with a Squid.

NOW – add feminism to this Squid thing & WOW!  What a combination! Just think!  As a Feminist Squid I can eat – without fear of recrimination from fellow Squids – any male Squid who ticks me off – & I've got the arms, tentacles & murderously sucking mouth with a flesh-tearing beak to do it! - Wow!  Just think of the envy of human & Octopi feminists on land & sea!!!  To be able to devour one's irritating men with impunity!

Who knew there were Black Widow Squids?!  (Well, sort of . . . initial sexual coupling is not a requirement for Squid cannibalism – mmmm – wait a minute . . . those spiders might be on to something . . . )

Morning quickie

So only days before the second Bush leaves town (not that he spends much of his time there) his father is already touting Jeb Bush as a presidential candidate.

Now let's see, we had Prescott Bush laundering money for Hitler and getting caught, We had Neil Bush involved in scandalous S&L shenanigans that cost us billions and getting off unscathed, we had George who made the dubious claim of being "out of the loop" during the Iran-Contra scandal, we had George the second who officially sealed the incriminating evidence and who is certainly a contestant for the worst American president (and I think we can include Central and South America in the contest) and perhaps we'll have another Bush, by and by.

Now how many gang members have to screw us before we can call it a gang bang?

“DONE, FINISHED, OUT’A HERE …”

When one lives among sharks and barracuda, one acquires a healthy respect for … shall we say … diversity.  To eat or be eaten is not a lifestyle to be taken lightly.  It is the way of the reef. Nothing personal.  In contrast, (O)CT(O)PUS thinks of human beings as rapacious without purpose and fractious beyond reason.  Not unlike cannibals, humans predate their own kind.

The title of this post does not signal my intent to quit The Swash Zone or retreat from Cyberspace.  These are my last words in a comment thread posted yesterday at Conservative Convictions, or as Captain Fogg likes to jest, Conservative Convicts.

It started with this post, “The Call to Dunkirk” Launches Mass Exodus From Public Schools. According to a video, it equates public education and “liberals” with fascism and Nazis. I responded to this post with the following comment:

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Gayle, if you don’t want to send your offspring to public school, that is your business; but to imply that those of us whose support of public education is akin to National Socialism, your attitude is disrespectful of other religious denominations and persons of conscience who hold different views.

A reasonable reply, I thought, but not according to Robert. Having known him for some time, he has … shall we say … a head for illogic thicker than a stone crab.  He obfuscates, perambulates, or simply ignores any point deemed inconvenient.  Here are examples:

ROBERT:  First, the suggestion that the First Amendment bars religion from public schools is absurd and I think it sad [Note Appeal to Emotion fallacy] that people consider this worthy of debate …

The framers had no problems with simply stating that troops quartered in private homes was forbidden, but the left suggests that they "meant" that religion was to be only a private matter [Note Analogical Argument fallacy] …

This intenet [sic] is supposed to have come from delegates to the Constitutional Convention where many were required to be a member of a church to be a delegate [Note Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy] …

I did not find this offensive at all [Note Subjective Argument fallacy].

Public education, as a general rule, has deteriorated to the point of spending an entire year teaching to pass a single test [Note Projective Identification fallacy that blames liberals for a program authored by conservatives] …

I knew more about history, geography, science, and humanities by the 5th grade than my children who are in high school have been taught [Note Questionable Authority fallacy] ….

There is tight local involvement, and because we are a red state and red county, our system is mostly rid of the liberal infestation of Al Gore movies and absurd anti-religious views [Note Appeal to Ridicule fallacy] …

Nowhere does it say that we are to humble ourselves before other religions, nor to place them on a level field with Christianity [Note Special Pleading fallacy].

Robert, however, is not the subject of this post.  This is:

GAYLE:  Wow! I didn't realize liberals were so against people deciding how they want their own children to be educated … I'm an American, and we still have freedom of choice in this country whether liberals like it or not. Public school, private school or homeschool [sic]. It's up to the parents, period.

Fine, fine, fine, except that is NOT what I said. If you are reading this, Gayle, please write on the blackboard 100 times:  This is not what 8pus said.  In fact, your faithful 8pus is himself a graduate of the Sargasso Academy, a posh and exclusive preparatory school for snooty cephalopods.

If you are re-reading my first comment, Gayle, I objected to your use of Godwin’s Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy that equates liberals with Nazis:

(O)CT(O)PUS:  Do you mean to imply that Jewish Americans, whose ancestors were killed in the Holocaust, are now consorting with Nazis just because they send their kids to public school?

There is more to Gayle’s post that I found objectionable. I referenced the website, ExodusMandate.org, and found this:

"Christians have already become numb to the moral relativism that is taught in all public schools today. Now children will be told that their sexual orientation and gender are relative, too. No longer will children raised in these schools understand that God made us male and female with different, but complementary roles. Instead, children will be taught that sexual orientation and gender are merely a matter of personal choice … The likely consequences of this for children, the institution of the family, our churches, and our culture are horrendous."

In other words, The Exodus Mandate is not about reading, writing, and arithmetic, or about a better education, or even about a religious education. The hidden message is all too obvious (my paraphrase):  “Since those fascist liberals will not allow discrimination against homosexuals in public, we choose to separate ourselves and practice discrimination in private.” Thus, the covert mission of the Exodus Mandate is DISCRIMINATION and HOMOPHOBIA.  I am just shocked to discover Christians engaging in stealth and guile; I thought this was Satan’s work.

I cannot, will not countenance discrimination in any form whatsoever based on ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation.  And I refuse to be associated with any forum that does.  With a heavy heart, I have decided to remove Conservative Convictions from our link list and shall return there no more.

Any objections?