Just a reminder.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Article. VI.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Ouch.

I'm sorry, was that built in 1995? I don't think I need to say anything about the content of the site - the design (or, shall we say, lack thereof) frames the content perfectly for what it is.

The design suggests a bunch of hot air - the content appears to be a bunch of hot air, which explains the design, since if there were actual content, heaps of flashing content and garish graphics wouldn't be necessary. (Yes, I did look at what was there: government-enforced euthanasia; the government is lying to you; everything is about to fail; etc, etc. It'd float a hot air balloon, if you could stand to listen to it.)

Yell louder and I guess more people will hear you... of course, that's exactly what's happening.

Grants Pass is beyond help. Grants Pass voted to shut down its public library. Grants Pass is known for its history of "Sundown laws." Black people had to be out of town by sundown if they wanted to live. The KKK once ruled in Southern Oregon. Most of SW Oregon is beyond help. It must be something in the water there, or the air. There is no remedy for willful ignorance and cultivated hatred, except to set limits. Sadly the people who most need health care live in places like Douglas County and they are the most ignorant, most likely to vote for people who manipulate them and leave them impoverished. I grew up in K. Falls, almost as bad, not quite. They believe in shooting people they don't like or disagree with. They think if they threaten you with guns and violence you will capitulate or leave. Need I say more.

Best solution for Grants Pass is for their young people to leave and go get an education somewhere where they can get a better life and leave that morass of hateful bile behind.

If you have hope for Grants Pass, Paulie, I compliment you and wish you well. The people you describe don't want to join the 20th century, much less the 21st. They belong to the Know-Nothing party of the 19th century.

I was always somehow under the impression that you were a Medford resident, Paulie, and had no idea you were in GP. Surprised we haven't run into each other. The ad in the Courier was completely disgusting and defamatory towards interim city manager Laurel Samson. I've worked with her quite a bit over the years, like her quite a bit, and admire her competence and professionalism. She deserves better than this. It's been really hard for me to watch the situation with the new GP city council unfold, as I'm friends with former City Manager Dave Frasher. In fact, I think we both had letters to the editor published in the Courier on consecutive days about the ordeal. What's laughable is that Councilor Tim Cummings is referred to as a "secular progressive," even though he is quite conservative. But as I stated in my letter to the editor, this mess makes me glad that I'm out in Cave Junction, where everybody is getting along just great these days.

Jamais Vu wrote:

"Secular progressives," like those who gave us the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of religion bit?

No, the founders of this country don't fit the definition of secular, and they certainly wouldn't identify themselves as 'progressives' if they knew what you meant by it.

Thanks for the intolerant rant, Bill R. You sound way spookier than most of my neighbors here near Grants Pass.

Joe, "founders of this country don't fit the definition of secular,"

OK, Joe, what is the definition of secular?

Many of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalians, Unitarians, and also, I believe, some Congregationalists.

There are evangelicals who don't consider people of such denominations "people of faith".

Joe, have you read the Federalist Papers? Those were the essays supporters of ratification of the US Constitution used to promote ratification. Those opposed were called Anti-federalists.

Not much else in the way of political labels back then--some of them had the attitude "beware of factions".

Actually, most of the framers were various flavors of deists.

The important fact is the the founding fathers designed a structure that kept religion OUT of politics.

That one party insists on injection of religion into politics is why Oregon is a one party state. And we are all paying a heavy price in job loss and lower standard of living because of the corruption that one party rule brings.

Jamie wrote:

"That one party insists on injection of religion into politics is why Oregon is a one party state"

I hear Democrats all the time invoking Jesus' words to care for the sick as a rationale for government health care.

I hear Democrats all the time invoking Jesus' words to care for the poor as a rationale for expanding welfare programs.

The Democrats use religion to advance their agenda. Don't pretend they don't.

I've been accused by liberal posters on BO of 'not being a good Christian' and 'lacking Christian compassion' if I didn't support liberal policies.

Don't give me this 'one party injects religion into politics' garbage, Jamie.

Open your eyes.

The Democrats love to play the religion card. Don't even try to pull this on me, Jamie.

LT wrote:

"Many of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalians, Unitarians, and also, I believe, some Congregationalists."

That's right. That's hardly 'secular'.

LT wrote:

"There are evangelicals who don't consider people of such denominations "people of faith"."

So what? There is no religious test for office, so what does their personal opinion matter?

Of course, Obama tried to use his church affiliation as a political tool during the campaign.

Democrats who hated George Bush for being unashamedly Christian conveniently reversed themselves and loved Barack for it. Can you explain that to me?

Is it only ok when a Democrat does it?

Joe Hill wrote:

"Actually, most of the framers were various flavors of deists."

A common misconception.

LT wrote:

"Not much else in the way of political labels back then"

My point was that the founders, if they were alive today, would not align themselves with those who call themselves 'Progressives'. Far from it.

The founders' views of limited federal government would make them the targets of ridicule and hatred by big government Democrats who seem to think that government can and must involve itself in every aspect of American life.

The founders' view of God as the creator and the giver of the human rights of life and liberty would cause liberals to label them 'the Taliban' and 'Nazis' and 'extremists', as liberals call modern Americans who espouse the same views.

No way would any of the founders associate himself politically with modern so-called 'Progressives'.

Paulie wrote:

"OK Joe, you've made your point, enough already."

lol

ok Paulie

btw when you get your 'thinker' shirt with Progrssive misspelled, post a pic, will ya?

I'll leave you alone for now. cheers, friend.

Bill R wrote: Grants Pass is known for its history of "Sundown laws." Black people had to be out of town by sundown if they wanted to live. The KKK once ruled in Southern Oregon. ...The people you describe don't want to join the 20th century, much less the 21st. They belong to the Know-Nothing party of the 19th century.

Actually, you make it sound here a bit more like the Democratic party of the south in the 19th and well into the 20th centuries.

The Know Nothings were anti-immigration 'nativists' - but largely anti-slavery. That they came to be called 'Know Nothings' had to do with their use of the phrase 'I know nothing' (ala Sgt Schultz from TV's Hogan's Heroes fame) when asked about their group's activities - not any lack of general knowledge or intelligence.

What churches the Founders belonged to, or didn't belong to, is beside the point. The point is that they intentionally created a SECULAR republic. There is not one reference to God or Jesus in the Constitution. But there is an explicit provision that no religious test shall be required for holding public office, and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If the Founders were trying to create a "Christian nation" they sure went about it in a peculiar way.

Surely I am not alone in skipping any comment ID'ed Joe White, having found nothing but sniping there.

dartagnan wrote: If the Founders were trying to create a "Christian nation" they sure went about it in a peculiar way.

Our government is 'secular' in that it follows civil laws rather than the those of any religious authority - and it does not favor any particular religion.

I don't believe the Founders were consciously trying to explicitly create a 'Christian' nation. However, while perhaps circumstantially a product of the men, place, and time, there is no question our country was largely founded on Judeo-Christian principles and traditions. This does not exclude the co-existence/inclusion of other religions - it's just fact... and those principles/traditions continue even today.

Ed,

You are not alone.

OK, proud secular progressive here, in to defend the founders for not being same.

The founders, in their wisdom (which was great, but not infinite), created a republic that separated church and state.

There is a WORLD of difference between that and the separation of religion and politics, which we have never come close to in this country and probably never will. This is true for better or for worse (and I would probably argue that it's for worse on balance, but it's a close question, setting up abolitionism, environmentalism, and the civil rights movement vs. almost every nasty political force we've known as a republic).

As to what the founders thought personally, well, it varied a great deal. The only ones who could reasonably be called "secular progressives" would be Jefferson and maybe Franklin. Washington was a good Christian, as were Madison and Adams, and several of the lesser-known founders were more than that. I'm of the view that none of this particularly matters, as society has changed so much since then that it's worth looking at what really was the common thread between the founders, i.e. the Enlightenment, i.e. a strong reaction against the excesses of Christianity at that time.

When you read the clauses that seem to take religion out of the federal government, you have to understand that this was pre-14th Amendment, and almost all the states had official state sects of Christianity, and that the founders kind of liked it that way.

One last thing, and this really gets my goat. The sneaky addition of "Judeo-" by modern conservatism into "Judeo-Christian values" or whatever other phrase is totally bogus and not borne out by Judaism, history, or current events. I think people who genuinely want a Christian nation should be honest about it instead of trying to co-opt my tribe's support in this distasteful way. There's nothing remotely "Judeo-" about anything they believe in. Leave us out of it!

"These are sad times my friends. If you're still sitting on the sidelines thinking this too shall pass, it won't. "

Circumstances were much worse in the South when conservatives and bigots ran the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party. The hypocritical policies then in practice have been reduced considerably, though not eliminated. Society has come a long way in the South and can in other places if enough people raise their standards and push to have them replace the blinkered views that now obstinately prevail. Consider Martin Luther King, Jr and the civil rights movement as a model and follow it.

"The founders' view of God as the creator and the giver of the human rights of life and liberty would cause liberals to label them 'the Taliban' and 'Nazis' and 'extremists', as liberals call modern Americans who espouse the same views.

"No way would any of the founders associate himself politically with modern so-called 'Progressives'."

Okay, Joe. Enlighten us. Were the Founding Fathers Christians? If so, how did around half of them justify holding slaves and the criminal and inhumane slave trade?

Why would they not associate themselves with "progressives"? Is that because progressives believe in human right and are not hypocrites when they endorse "all men are created equal with a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Paulie, I have watched the City Manager and then City Councilor situation unfold with interest from Medford. Like Scott, I knew Mr Frasher and thought he has been treated poorly by the newly elected council members.

That said, I would hardly consider those in the re-call effort secular progressives. From my perspective it was more about growth and development versus no growth and development. But hey, why let a little hyperbole stand in the way of the truth when a huge recall effort is being mounted?

Bill R wrote - Most of SW Oregon is beyond help.

Hey Bill, most of us here are tired of the Portland/Salem Eugene set as well. Tell you what petition Salem to let us go and we will gladly finally found our mythical state of Jefferson. I we can get the rest of California to allow Redding north to do the same in Sacramento we wold gladly become the 51st state.

As I recall, the KKK did not just control S. Oregon--at one time they controlled the legislature. Direct Election of Senators (by voters, not legislature) happened about that time or a little before then.

This is a link to what some call the Oregon Catholic Schools case.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/pier_v_soci.html

An attempt by Oregon to require students attend public schools (and to outlaw Catholic schools) was overturned by the US Supreme Court.

And if you don't know about West Virginia v. Barnette, by all means find that opinion and read it. Justice Jackson wrote the majority opinion in 1943. It basically says that no government official can "prescribe what shall be orthodox" in politics, religion, or other areas of opinion.

That doesn't mean religious people had nothing to do with Oregon history. Willamette University was started by Methodists, who played a large role in the founding of Oregon. Oregon's capitol grounds incl. a statue of a circuit riding preacher. As I understand it, Sisters of the Holy Names also were pioneers in Oregon.

But the point is, nothing in Oregon law requires people to be Methodists or Catholics, and the attempt to outlaw Catholic schools was overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Were the justices who overturned the attempt to outlaw Catholic schools "secular progressives"?

Oh, and Paulie, about "The dangerous atmosphere of the Health Care Town Halls "---turns out they were dangerous to Dick Armey's job with a lobbying firm.

Turns out that besides running Freedomworks, he was working for a lobbying firm--whose clients support health care reform. It was reported on NPR, NY Times and elsewhere that he was asked to resign his lobbying position because the clients were angry that he was helping foment nasty protests at town hall meetings.

These people can be scary until they are overtaken by more common sense citizenry. I recall a friend who was on a local school board in the early 1980s. He was also active in his church. Moral Majority was trying to force a certain curriculum on local school boards. He stood up to them and the local MM chapter tried to recall him. Didn't work--people thought it wrong that the agitators were trying to paint him as "not religious" because his church was mainline Protestant and he stood up against Moral Majority got active and defeated that attack on him.

One sure way to defeat attacks like "This same secular progressive mindset is currently destroying America" is to start asking questions along the lines of "labels short circuit thought".

1) What are the details of the "secular progressive mindset"?
2) In what way are they "destroying America"? 3) Is the definition of "secular" that people don't go to church, or that they believe in the Constitutional prohibition about a "religious test"? Is it possible that some churches are "secular" because they are not evangelical?

People just repeating talking points often don't know the answers to such questions.

Good post LT. Thanks for reminding us all that the KKK had their hooks in deep all the way through the political structure of the state. Yes, they did try to pass a law against Catholic Schools. While unsuccessful there, there were able to pass a law prohibiting any religious gard being worn by teachers in the classroom. This law survives today, just being re-codified by the democrat controlled legislature up in salem during the 2009 session.

"I we can get the rest of California to allow Redding north to do the same in Sacramento we wold gladly become the 51st state."

Given the way the U.S. dollar is threatened with militarism and the bloated war department budget and other problems, it might be wiser to secede.

Yeah, well it isn't possible as well as being impractical. With the blessing of Sacramento and Salem we could, however set up a 51st state.

To hell with the founding fathers... What was the intent of our founding mothers!

"I'll leave you alone for now. cheers, friend.

Joe"

Is it just me are people who call others friend usually not?

I guess Joe has made his point.

Not that he changed any minds here.

Gawd this is boredom incarnate.

Again, so far as I know, this is supposed to be a place where progressives talk about progressive issues and strategy. At least that is what I come for. It is damnably annoying when conversation is dominated by ignorant and/or lying twits who pretend to some level of erudition that they obviously don't have.

OK, this is not a college seminar, and there are philosophical questions as to what weight this information should be given, and if we need to drop an entire bibliography for those who feel the need to pursue this, then OK, but take it from me (M.Div. Harvard '01, and a lecturer in U.S. History, and I'm holding the relevant reference book Freedom From Federal Establishment: Formation and Early History of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (Antieu, Downey et al.) in my frakking hand, the overwhelming religious "sauce" in the room in 1787 among the framers was Enlightenment deism, although Washington's was not the same as Madison's etc..

Different states had different religious situations which, in a time of volatility, made the general toleration of deism even more appealing. The fact that this deism was so deeply rooted in the dominant culture of prevailing institutions can be seen by the revolt against deism in the Great Awakening, and in the institutional measures to cope with that revolt (e.g. half fellowship in New England, the continuing political struggle of the Connecticut Stand Up Laws, etc.) yada yada yada

So . . . yes, it's not so simple and linear and reductive but yes, they are mostly deists for both ideological and practical political reasons. What they are not, generally speaking, is pietists.

Honestly, do we have to go through this crap every time some right wing troll asserts some trollish nonsense, which is to say, every fourth or fifth word? Isn't it possible to have some higher conversation here? Can't we ignore the most obvious trollish claptrap?

Joe Hill wrote:

"the overwhelming religious "sauce" in the room in 1787 among the framers was Enlightenment deism"

Nonsense.

I don't care how many books you have that assert this falsehood. I don't care how often you've stated this in a lecture.

The deistic 'non intervening' God is incompatible with Christian teaching such as the Bible as God's message to man, Jesus Christ as sent from/speaking for God, and a God who hears and answers prayer.

Would a deist consider the Bible to be in any way a message from God to man? No.

Would a deist consider Jesus Christ to be in any way a representative or spokesman for God? No.

Would a deist consider God to be in the business of answering prayer? No.

You can find numerous references from the founders of this country that show their view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, and of prayer do not match the definition of deism.

Kurt Chapman for Jefferson state governor!

The democracies with high percentages of secular progressives like Denmark and Sweden have created the healthiest and happiest societies on Earth. This needs to become part of the public discussion as we decide how to improve our society.

Book recommendation: "Society without God" by Phil Zuckerman

Zuckerman destroys the notion religious superstition is somehow needed to form a more moral society

Scott, thanks, but only with you in the Cabinet!

Joshua, please also enlighten us as to the personal marginal tax rate in those secular progressive nirvana's like Sweden and Denmark

Denmark is 0-63% with a 25% VAT or National Sales Tax

Sweden is 28.8 - 59.1% with a 25% VAT up to 6% on essentials

So they pay for their secular progressive nirvana via crushing personal taxes upon the population. Let's include that in the discussion as well.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Joshua Welch wrote:

"Zuckerman destroys the notion religious superstition is somehow needed to form a more moral society "

What standard do you intend to measure morality against to determine what is 'more' or 'less' moral?

Without a standard of measure, you cannot determine weight or length or width or volume or area.

Without a standard of morality, you cannot determine 'more' moral or 'less'.

Your pretension of being 'more moral' is useless without a standard.

Umm Joe

You don't need religion to be moral or to determine morality levels.

And the founding fathers were likely realtively secular & progressive. For their day anyway.

"Why can't women go to stonings Mum?"

"Because it's written that's why!"

Kurt:

Thank you for the link to the tax rates around the world. It can be a great help in debates such as this; however, they don't tell all the story. The Europeans have higher official tax rates than we have, but their taxes pay for important items that we have to dip into our pockets for, such as health care and education.

Many Europeans have had medical care that would have bankrupted most Americans, but paying for those instances of care was the least of the Europeans' problems. Another Story from The UK

Then there is education. If qualified, most western Europeans can get a free, or almost free, education up to university level. In some cases, Denmark I believe is an example, students also get a stipend to provide for their living expenses while at university. A few weeks ago my dentist told me it is common for graduating dentists in the U.S. to be four or five hundred thousand dollars in debt. I was at a meeting a year or so ago and a doctor in the audience said when she graduated she was around $400,000 in debt. That sort of thing is unheard of in Western Europe.

If we in the United States looked at health premiums and college tuition fees as taxes then our "tax rates" would be seen as higher.

If someone is qualified it would make a great thread on BO to have an analysis of all of these elements. Alternatively, does anyone know of a study or book that provides that information?

There is another related point. A couple or three years ago I came across a poll that indicated that most Western Europeans accepted their higher tax rates because they felt they got value for their money. This suggests cultural factors also come into play when we talk about taxes.

Mike wrote:

"You don't need religion to be moral or to determine morality levels."

How do you measure 'more' or 'less' of something (especially something intangible) without a standard to measure against?

Consider how we measure intelligence. You cannot say one person is 'more intelligent' than another unless you are measuring them both against a standard.

Without a standard that defines what is and is not moral, moral becomes whatever I say it is, or whatever you say it is.

In that scenario, each can claim to be 'more moral', but they are simply stating their opinion.

Joshua's 'more moral' secular society is simply his opinion unless he can show us that it's really so. And to do that he'll need a standard.

The standard does not need to be religion though.

Mike wrote:

"The standard does not need to be religion though."

Well, we're halfway there. You admit that there must be a moral standard in order to measure what is 'more' or 'less' moral.

But you don't want a religious moral code. Ok.

So, tell us why anyone should seriously consider a moral code that YOU come up with, or that YOU endorse.

How can we know that anyone following YOUR personal moral code is 'more moral'?

If we measure everyone against the code that YOU give us, what makes you 'more moral' than everyone else?

<h2>(If they are not 'more moral' by following your code, then why should they follow it at all?)</h2>