The settlement of the Northwest Territories was undertaken in the
belief that Christianity is the foundation of free societies and just
governments.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol.1, p. 311-12
| I have known of societies formed by the Americans
to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western
States to found schools and churches there, lest religion
should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and
the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than
the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New
Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in
order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on
the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus
religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by
the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive
consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only
one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse
with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be
surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this
world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to
find a priest. They will tell you that "all the American
republics are collectively involved with each other; if the
republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be
mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now
flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great
peril. It is, therefore,
our interest that the new States should be religious, in order
to maintain our liberties."
Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that
the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss
in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and
happiness of the human race is to believe in some blind
cosmogony, or to assert with Cabanis the secretion of thought by
the brain, I can only reply that those
who hold this language have never been in America, and
that they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When
they return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have
to say. |
Separationists still have not returned
from their expedition.
I am looking for a scholarly webpage to link to. Until this webpage
is found, readers will have to be content with the following dialogue on
American OnLine's "Separation of Church and State" Discussion
Board.
Subject: Re: Intentional distortion?
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/20/00
In article <20000520003717.15833.00000285@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
edarr1776.@.aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:
>Kevin said: >> (2)
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
>government and the happiness
>of mankind, . . . shall forever be encouraged."
>(Northwest
Ordinance, 1787, Art. III). <<
>
>
>Those ellipses warn us that, in such a short passage, important
words have
>been cut out. The way Kevin cites it, it sounds as though
Congress was
>encouraging religion (though no specific religion).
There is nothing that can be added to this quote that would make it
acceptable to the ACLU. It clearly advances "religion" over
non-religion and belief over unbelief, in stark violation of the myth of
"separation" as invented by the Everson
Court. It says religion is "necessary" for good government and
the happiness of mankind. This makes unbelievers feel "left
out" and relegates them to a "second class" status, in
stark violation of the myth of separation as preached by the Court
in Allegheny
v. ACLU. No matter what you add to this quote, it still shows that
"separation of church and state" was never a part of our
"organic
law."
>But here's how it REALLY reads:
"Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge,
>being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and
>the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Well fancy THAT! It's not enough that our organic law says that religion
is necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind.
But WHERE is religion to be advanced and inculcated? IN SCHOOLS!!
The very place the Soopreme Court has been so anxious to rid of all
Christian values! Gee, Ed -- thanks for pointing out that our nation's
fundamental law requires SCHOOLS to teach RELIGION AND MORALITY!!!
>So instead of endorsing religion,
Congress endorsed education.
False. Congress CLEARLY endorses religion. It declares religion to be
NECESSARY to good government and the happiness of mankind. What greater
"endorsement" could one imagine? What words should
Congress have used if they wanted to endorse religion???
>There is a difference there, and one
wonders why Kevin felt compelled to try
>to change the meaning of what the founders had to say.
I was setting a trap. Thanks for getting snagged.
> (Dont' take my word for it -- go read
it for yourself:
> The
Avalon Project : Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 )
And don't forget to listen to legal scholars who know more than Ed
does about what our organic law means, and sets it firmly in the context
of American history. See footnote 9 of Justice Douglas' concurring
opinion in Engel
v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which removed prayer
from public schools. He declares:
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school
system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First
Amendment, provided in Article III that Religion, morality, and
knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of
mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.
The "Separation of church and state" is a myth.
Kevin C.
http://vftonline.org/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
Subject: Northwest Ordinance required Religion in Public Schools
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 1/18/99
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school
system.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which antedated the First Amendment,
and continued in effect for at least 100 years, provided in Article III
that
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged."
EDarr1776 has said that the NW Ordinance does not require religion in
the public schools. I find his exegesis of this text to be tortured. Ed
has never provided any evidence from any authority that the Ordinance
was NOT understood to required the teaching of religion in the public
schools. Just his say-so.
For evidence of my interpretation, see footnote 9 of Justice Douglas'
concurring opinion in Engel
v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which removed prayer from
public schools. He admits:
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school
system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment,
provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge
being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Ed might reply that prayer and Bible reading in the schools violates
the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. But that
Amendment was never interpreted that way until the 1947 Everson
case.
Justice Douglas supported removing religion from schools, but admits
that
At the same time I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to
establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words.
The Court analogizes the present case to those involving the
traditional Established Church. We once had an Established Church, the
Anglican. All baptisms and marriages had to take place there. That
church was supported by taxation. In these and other ways the Anglican
Church was favored over the others. The First Amendment put an end to
placing any one church in a preferred position. It ended support of
any church or all churches by taxation. It went further and prevented
secular sanction to any religious ceremony, dogma, or rite. Thus, it
prevents civil penalties from being applied against recalcitrants or
nonconformists. A religion is not established in the usual sense
merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the
public school teacher leads.
(at 442 and note 7)
(Actually, the First Amendment did not "put an end to"
this. It had been ended years before by the states. The First Amendment
guaranteed that the federal government would not undo what the states
had already done.)
Many state constitutions, drafted as late as 1875, contain the
Northwest Ordinance's exact words, because they became a part of this Christian
nation under Congressional Enabling Acts passed under the Northwest
Ordinance.
Thus until at least 1875, and arguably until 1961, religion in the
public schools was not thought to be unconstitutional, when
"religion" is understood in a non-sectarian
way (that is, when Christianity is taught without promoting Anglicanism
and denouncing Presbyterianism).
The removal of prayer from the public schools by the Supreme Court in
1961 was a clearly a violation of the
Original Intent of the Founding Fathers in their Constitution.
Subject: Re: Ordinance of 1785
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/14/99
In article <19990512220148.03405.00000812@ng-ci1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:
>While the authorship of the Northwest
Ordinance is legion, Commager and
>Cantor note that "fundamentally, of course, the Ordinance
followed
>Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784."
>
>Jefferson once again shows himself the true American Renaissance
man.
>
Ed's post on the Northwest Ordinance is largely irrelevant. He
asks for evidence that religion was taught in schools, which I have
previously posted, but the Ordinance speaks for itself. Religion,
morality and knowledge are necessary for good government, so SCHOOLS
shall be built to ensure good government. What evidence is there that
said schools would ONLY teach "knowledge" divorced
from religion and morality? The very idea was unthinkable by all who
had a hand in the drafting and ratifying of the Ordinance.
With the possible exception, of course, of Jefferson. And Ed brings
Jefferson in to try to insinuate that the "real" meaning of
the Ordinance was secular. But this will not do. No one questions the
influence of Jefferson, as no one questions his influence on the
Declaration of Independence. But Jefferson was out of step with the rest
of the nation. And when Congress adopted the language of Jefferson's
land ordinance and his draft of the Declaration of Independence, they
were thankful for Jefferson's contribution, but went
on to make the drafts appropriate for a Christian nation.
In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson
had written:
And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
But Congress amended it to read:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Ed correctly quotes the language of the 1789 Ordinance:
Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged.
Face it, Ed. The men who wrote this Ordinance did not think the way
you think. They did not think the way you would like to think they
thought. They thought religion and morality were necessary to good
government. You think religion and government should be kept
"separate." Most Americans today agree with the Founders, and
disagree with you and the ACLU. (The problem with most of these
Americans, however, is that they are also self-centered and apathetic.)
Whatever Jefferson may have believed about religion and morality,
this Ordinance does not reflect his views.
The goal (the "end") of the Ordinance is good
government.
The means to the end is religion and morality and knowledge.
The tool for all three of these is "schools and the means of
education."
Nobody in America (with the possible exception of Jefferson) believed
that education could be stripped of religion and morality and still be
effective education. Even if Jefferson believed this, he was overruled
by the elected representatives of a Christian
nation.
Subject: Re: Stupid Secularisms #245 -- Collect them All!
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/14/99
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated that
Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged.
Ed shows that when schools remove religion and morality, they end up
removing knowledge as well.
In article <19990512015854.20661.00000760@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:
>Kevin said, in error: >>Thus,
>the Northwest Ordinance made it a matter of policy
>to teach "religion and morality" in schools.
<<<
>
>The Northwest Ordinance made it a policy to teach reading. Policy
was to
>encourage education, because educated people could read the Bible or
any
>other book, and become more moral for being educated. Education is
essential
>to morality, the law said.
Work on your reading skills, Ed. The Ordinance says religion
is necessary for good government. It does not say Education is necessary
for morality. That's true, of course, but not what the law says. The law
says religion and morality are necessary for good
government. The law says there should not be and can never be a
"separation" of religion and state. I know it hurts, Ed, but
come to grips with it.
>Education was essential to religion. So the
law
>encouraged education.
Read it again, Ed. It simply doesn't say "education was
essential to religion." It says religion is essential to government:
Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged.
EVEN IF the Northwest Ordinance said "education is essential to
religion, so let's build schools," that would be a law designed to
advance religion, which would prove that the
so-called Lemon test was not intended by the Framers.
>"Religion and morality" were not
taught. That wasn't the policy.
>
>Ed
That was the policy, and the policy was put into effect. In the
authoritative reference work, A Cultural History of Education, R.
Freeman Butts, a teacher of teachers at the Teachers College of Columbia
University notes that,
Stemming from the great influence that organized religion played in
the establishment and control of American education, the ideal of
character development through religion was still a dominant aim in the
nineteenth century. Bulwarked by the religious . . . traditions, "moral
training" remained closely identified through much of the century
with the ideals of Christian character and was often considered
impossible apart from specific religious training. As the secular
movement gained headway, character development continued to be
emphasized as a function of the public schools despite the absence of sectarian
religious instruction. This aim was influential at all levels from
elementary schools though the liberal arts college.
(1947, ed., p. 498)
Remember the evidence I cited from Butts and Cremin that men like Horace
Mann, who were leaders in eliminating "sectarian"
education from schools, and are often cited as part of the "secular
movement," were adamant that they were not trying to eliminate the
Bible from public schools, only the distinctives of denominational
ecclesiocracies. Religion and morality were inseparably linked and
pervaded public schools.
Butts notes that in the nineteenth century,
American culture revealed the interplay of several major factors,
the religious tradition, Humanism, democracy, nationalism, capitalism,
science, industrialism, and a new psychology.
The US Constitution did not intend to remove the Bible and prayer
from schools. It didn't accomplish that goal. Even as America began to
apostatize, rejecting God and going a-whoring after the gods of
industrialism, capitalism, materialism, and Humanism, religion and
morality were still the bedrock of all public school curricula. The
syncretism and metamorphosis of America the Christian nation into
America the materialist patriotic warmonger nation was not mandated
by the Constitution. That was a sociological, not a legal,
phenomenon. More and more people are rejecting patriotism
and industrial fascism and urging us to return to the Spiritual values
and "faith of our fathers."
Ed apparently prefers materialism, industrial fascism and the
DOOM-induced killings of Littleton Colo, to the "religion, morality
and knowledge" of the Northwest Ordinance and all of 19th century
public education
Subject: Re: Humanism as Religion
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church/State?
Date: 5/23/99
In article <19990520015909.10952.00002482@ng31.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:
>
>I said: >Schools were places
>>of education, not religion.
>
>Kevin said: >>The Northwest Ordinance of 1789 directed schools
to be places
>of
>"Religion, morality, and knowledge.">>>
>
>On the continuum of whole truths to whole lies, that's close enough
to a
>whole lie as to be indistinguishable. The Northwest Ordinance, in
Article I,
>guarantees religious freedom to all.
Here we go again. "Religious freedom" being pitted against
the requirement to be a Christian nation. It was Christians who demanded
guarantees of "religious freedom" to keep the federal
government from interfering in the religious establishments of the
states, not to legalize polygamy or impose atheism on students.
>In Article three, it says that religion
>and morality are important, and SO education is to be encouraged.
More specifically, it says religion and morality are essential to
good government, and SO SCHOOLS are to be encouraged, because
that's where religion and morality are to be taught.
>
>The Northwest Ordinance didn't direct schools to do or be anything
at all.
>
I would say that anyone looking at Article III would conclude that
"religion, morality and knowledge" are to be taught in the
schools. Can you post any evidence of any kind that religion and
morality were NOT to be taught in the schools required by Article III?
ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
of education shall forever be encouraged.