Written by my neighbor who happens to be a partner at the Law Firm that my startup employs. Proud to be working with Chris and his firm. My kind of people.
As is rather typical these days, this article is an over-reaction based on hysteria, misinformation, and a rather tyrannical march to trample the rights for anyone that does not agree with the direction, and position of the GLBT lobby and their threats against anyone who does not agree with their position. This was truly a misdirected edict from the Charlotte City Council when they passed the "mandate" for every business and enterprise. They are as hypocritical as they say the people who don't agree with their position are. In some states, their tactics border on the fascist model in its simplest form: Simple Definition of fascism • : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government • : very harsh control or authority PayPal, and other business entities completely misconstrued the intent of protecting privacy rights based on common sense, and took inane action accordingly. Hopefully, now that the Governor has signed an executive order to "clarify" the intent, the will reconsider. Otherwise, I think I will cancel m PayPal account. They acted hysterically and based on, I believe, purposely misworded statements from those who seek to control every arena of everyone's life that does not agree with their agenda. Here is Governor Pat McCrory's clarification on the matter: http://governor.nc.gov/press-release/governor-mccrory-takes-action-protect-privacy-and-equality
And that means forcing persons, who want to protect their biological privacy, to accept anyone that "decides" they want to intrude because they feel a certain way? So, if I don't feel comfortable being a man or woman, who wants biological privacy (which is what the NC statute was about), their desires and rights don't count? Your response is as extreme as your thought position and the propaganda you seem to attach yourself to dictate. BY the way, I have family members and co-workers who are homosexual, and I do not treat them, or have treated them, with disdain. So, your "stereotyping" shows how biased your really are!
Sorry but can you define biological privacy? I don't think I've ever had anyone try to check my genitals while I was using a public restroom in all of my years.
The right to be seen only by those that have your biological genetalia. The right, even with those of your own biological sex, to have privacy in the most basic of human functions without the discomfort of intrusion. This applies, especially, to those of different biological genetalia. It is almost unbelievable that this is actually a point of discussion. It is like discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. An exercise in futility in defiance of common sense.
We have stalls in women's bathrooms. Plus that's not a right because then that would mean sex with a partner of the opposite sex infringed on a right which doesn't really work. Also I don't care what somebodies packing, creeps come in all forms and I'm not going to delude myself to think I'm magically "safe" around vaginas. Like "oh phew, that person staring at me was really creeping me out but now that I know they were born with a vagina I guess I'm all good !" doesn't seem logical to me.
Again, I have had my genitals checked in a public bathroom exactly zero times by anyone. When I use the bathroom, I am able to get in, lock my stall which presumably would protect me from any marauding genitals of any kind, wash my hands, and get out without checking anyone else's genitals or having my own checked. I give people in bathrooms the privacy that I expect to receive. That means I don't get involved with anyone's genitals but my own. It also means that anyone who tries to get involved with my genitals, regardless of what their genitals are like, is getting their ass reported. So let's keep our eyes on our own papers then, so to speak.
That's because restrooms were based upon common sense "genital" separation, historically and otherwise. Nobody goes and does the "Crocodile Dundee" treatment to people walking in the restroom - that is as stupid as it seems. But people expect the normal, historical, and genetic respect that has been honored for thousands of years - and nobody was "offended" or demanded special treatment. This is a ludicrous extrapolation of the argument. This is "grasping at straws" instead of level headed logic. A vagina is a vagina (no matter what I think it should be) and a penis the same. To conclude otherwise borders on the fantastic and is a hysterical stance to a common sense, decent sense of self and biology. All else is nonsense!
lmfao again what the hell is genetic respect and why would you come in here 3 days after Orlando and try and appeal to "decency" when this exact logic is the kind of shit that gets us killed? also thanks for calling me hysterical that's real fuckin neato
This has NOTHING to do with a Muslim Extremist terrorist. People who hold the view I commented on would have NOTHING to do with killing people, straight, gay or otherwise. It is misleading for you to attempt to equate it as a similar pattern of behavior. Methinks you are the "extremist" here. Decency never killed anyone. So, you equate someone who holds more to the "traditional values" as people who kill, hate, and discriminate? That in itself is a very "biased" and myopic stance. The people who hold to traditional values don't go into nightclubs, straight, gay or otherwise, and start killing people. Again, you have your right to speak (freedom of speech), but remember, that right was ingrained into our codified laws by a bunch of people who held to "traditional values". As far as taking a month off, I work full time and do a lot of other things, so my time on "social media so to speak" is very limited to times when I can. What has that got to do with anything anyway?
yikes ok can you not come back onto hubski whenever there's a tragedy and pick more fights with me? cuz all you do is disappear for a month until the next one and sling shit rather than explain your position. i've had enough of you enjoy your block <3
That's not what fascism is. Couldn't you pick something more appropriate to compare this to, anyway? Maybe PC culture or something? From a card-carrying member of the GSM lobby, here is my clarification on the matter:
OK, unbelievably skewed "Political Correctness" it is then! But simple Fascism, not the Benito Mussolini type, is what the vehicle is that is being used. There are several cases of notoriety, nationally, that are being used to promote this skewed view of "rights". It is one thing to deny service completely (as Chick-Fil-A was accused of but doesn't do), and it is another thing to violate your conscience to "promote" something you don't believe in with the core of your being ( defining it as a public service). One is wrong and the other is right! Even when very tastefully applied (see the case of EMU and Ms. Ward - link below), the ardent ACLU and "political correctness elite" seek to impose their will upon persons of faith with indiscriminate force to comply (simple Fascism). http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0024p-06.pdf In this case, the 6th Circuit spanked EMU and the District Court with bias and threw out their arbitrary ruling based on bias, and Ms. Ward was awarded financial damages for their solicitous actions. In any case, to your point, it is political correctness run amok, and defies common sense decency and respect.
The ACLU has, from its inception, been an anti-religious entity. While they may throw a "crumb" in the direction of protecting religious liberty, their main focus is to eradicate the foundations and underpinnings of our nation, and to force people of faith into a box never to be heard from in public. Their claims of the "non-religious" influence on the founding of our country are fallacious, unfounded, and vociferous in their antagonism and belie the role of religion, in the public square, of anyone of faith (especially our Founders for the most part - Example: there were only two Deists who signed the Declaration of Independence - Benjamin Franklin (who later in life recanted his position and it is in the Congressional Record) and Thomas Jefferson. There was only one Deist who were involved in the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin). The rest, with the exception of two"non-religious, but not antagonistic to religion, governors, were people of faith, preachers, and stalwart churchgoers. The ACLU (July 19, 1920) appeared in the early 20th century as a result of influences from the Fabian Society and other like entities who seek to silence the voices of anyone who practices their faith in public. Any cursory reading of most of the founding documents, the biographies of the Founders, the Signers of the Declaration and the signers of the Constitution prove otherwise, as well as common practices of that day (which are squelched by most of today's educational elite) only show the narrow mindedness of the ACLU premise. So, you can post the ACLU position, but the ACLU is biased in their approach and interpretation of historical and current events. I, personally, don't place much credence on their positions (but that is me - and a host of others but not everyone obviously).
That's quite the claim you have there without a lick of evidence. And assuming of course, by 'foundations and underpinnings' you mean the christian morality that's stapled to the bottom of the constitution like cheap upholstery. We would be well off without it. Their faith should never be heard from in public. Religion is like your penis. It's great to have one, and if you're proud of it, good for you! But keep it in private, and keep it away from kids. Separation of Church and State bro.their main focus is to eradicate the foundations and underpinnings of our nation,
to force people of faith into a box never to be heard from in public.
No evidence! Let me give you an example or two: A main founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin and his compatriot Emma Goldman (an Anarchist). Roger Baldwin embraced, initially, Communism. He only denounced the methods, not the concepts. The concepts of Communism include Atheism and Marxist statements that "Religion is the opiate of the People". Here is one of his statements: I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. Roger Nash Baldwin Article from Soviet Russia Today [edit] "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." (PDF document) (Soviet Russia Today, September 1934) [emphasis below in original] • I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. • When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. So, we see that Roger Baldwin was "anti-Religion' and anti-private property. Let's look at Emma Goldman's statements and sentiments: “The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.” ― Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays “Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals…” ― Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays “Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails.” ― Emma Goldman “I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever his mistakes, man has for thousands of years been working to undo the botched job your god has made.” ― Emma Goldman So, both were "anti-religion" and wanted to displace a Constitutional Republic with Communism or "communist concepts" or with anarchy (and we know what ends ancient Greece came to). These are the "seeds" of the ACLU and its stances on many issues of "religion and the public square" (which is a 20th century, Progressive phenomenon not grounded in the Founding documents). The "Separation Clause", as interpreted by the ACLU and others, is so far from the intent of the letter from the Danbury Baptists which denounced a governmental body favoring one denomination over another, not banning all religious speech and statements in the public domain.
The “wall of separation” which you invoke, almost like an incantation, is one of dispute to this day. Some, strict separationists, use it to exclude any notion of “expression of religion” in the public square, public places and some governmental sites. This is inconsistent with the early years of our nation, and very problematic in its supposition when reviewing Jefferson’s political behavior as a state governor and then U.S. President. The meaning of the phrase “separation of church and state” is still in flux in both educational and political realms. This is a well written expose by Daniel L. Dreisbach, of the Heritage Foundation is noteworthy. Heritage is more conservative (but non-partisan), and there are other notable “think tanks” such as Brookings (center left) or Cato (more independent) that have similar contributions. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse The U.S. Supreme court is not infallible, and has been completely wrong on occasions (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dred-scott-decision). It is good that the general population later on (through the prescribed Constitutional amendment process and not judicial caveat), and the Court itself as well, reversed this calamitous decision. Many believe that Justice Hugo Black and his colleagues were also wrong on their interpretation of the “wall of separation”. I am of that opinion myself. Any cursory review, of both writings of public officials (which are voluminous), public official behaviors, the establishment of such national universities such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton and public buildings and architecture for the first 150 years of our national existence cast a doubt upon the current, more contemporary, interpretation of the “separation clause”. So, to your statement, “the Separation of Church and State bro” is one of those statements used, and disputed by many laymen, scholars, and jurists today, as an overarching censorship of any religious speech and displays as “gospel” (no pun intended) and beyond dispute. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is like using George Washington’s statement that - “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries, as a statement that there was no Judeao-Christian influence on our laws and the founding of our Nation. That belief is a belief built upon a farce. What George Washington meant, in the framework of history is that there was no established national “Christian religion” (as in the Church of England and the Monarchical dictates which predicated part of the American Revolution), and that the Federal Government of the United States was not based on one specter of religion. He did NOT mean that there was no Judea-Christian influence in the founding of our nation (again voluminous writings from that time), nor did he mean that people of faith should be shut out of the public square, nor their voices silenced in the public sector. His own behaviors as a person and President belie that supposition. As to the comment “keep it away from kids” is so lamentable, biased, dogmatic and bombastic, I won’t even go there in response on this post. Needless to say that comment flies in the face of the history of humanity and common respect.
Non believers are protected by the very laws that, mostly Christians, enshrined. You can even Google that one. The concept of "tolerance" and "equality" are based in mostly Christian concepts of the same. Even though you may not like it, these are "foundational" to the very tolerance you claim to espouse. Here they are" Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [fn]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Even though it says "in Christ Jesus" it is a concept of equality and was used as a foundation in Western Civilization Law. The second: Romans 12:18 - If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. This is a statement of tolerance in both religious terms (tolerance of other Denomination other than the Church of England), but even those of contrary beliefs such as atheism. That is a matter of factual history in our Founding Documents and the records of the early days of our "Representative Republic".
To even equate Sharia Law with the long-time foundations of Western law and history is a nonsensical equation or comparison. We don't, and never did, prohibit women from talking to a man in public. We NEVER, prohibited women from being in the presence of a man absent of their husband or relative. NEVER, in modern days, prohibit women from driving cars, or getting an education. We, as a country, did not permit slaves or women from voting, but we, as a society, corrected that via the Constitutional Amendment process, (not judicial caveat or the likes). This case, HB2 , is an open, common sense solution. What you surmise (though misplaced) is that they are the same, and they are NOT. Do we execute people of homosexuality or transgender in this country - NO? Do we deny employment from homosexuals in this country - NO! For you to allude that the US is the same as Sharia law is a ludicrous comparison and bares no justification is history or US law.
Re separation of church and state, here is T. Jeff exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802 “[E]very one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” Letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808 “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Notes on the State of Virginia , 1781 – 1785“… 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
However, since you quote Jefferson, let’s take some stories from the Monticello website on his religious beliefs and life beliefs: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs
Glad to, they only bolster my point that Jefferson saw that government was for making laws and not for supporting or trumpeting religion, in any way. You think T Jeff would want creationism taught in school? --- In summation, he has always stuck me as a man that was unparalleled in his ability to be forward thinking. The fact that many people see what the founders set forth as concrete would seem baffling to Jefferson. He knew that he couldn't foretell what was to come. I think of the following quote often these days in regard to so many policy debates, especially "the right to bear arms," It is so obvious to me why christian conservatives see the constitution as gospel and the founders as gods, they're believers. There is an inherent need to "believe." I came across an interesting quote from Bukowski recently, "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." -Jefferson wasn't stupid... but we're living in a world full of stupid right now, which is scary stuff. Regarding Jefferson and religion. It seems to me that Jefferson adored Christ's teachings but didn't see Christ as a "god" or a "miracle worker." That stuff was silly to him. The teachings were enough. Regarding separation of church and state, his statements support that he saw governments role to be one of ensuring harm wasn't done to individuals but saw no harm in someone believing, not believing etc. That the government would teach or promote any particular belief system seems counter to what he would have wanted. He was a progressive, extremely intelligent fella. Imagine what he would think about politics today?"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only 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 enquiry are the only effectual agents against error
He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."
-My goodness, I wish more "christians" were like Jefferson in their approach. It's not the miracles, the eucharist, the father, son and holy spirit that matter. IT'S THE TEACHINGS. THE LESSONS HE PUT FORTH! Man, oh man, how different would the world be if it were the teachings and the philosophy of Jesus Christ we focused on instead of the death and "resurrection" of him? But fear fills pews and the promise of eternal life conveniently answers the oldest question. he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living'
-Read that last bit over and over again to yourself. It seems simple, but it's pretty damned amazing. It takes a great mind to be that forward thinking and humble. We all need to appreciate our founders, but we tend to make "gods" out of them and gospel out of their work.
Yes, as most Diests would; no question. As to the "Wall of Separation", his intent (and the backdrop and meaning) was for a government NOT to endorse one particular sect or denomination thus establishing a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. He was also an ardent supporter of the "free exercise thereof" which is increasingly being restricted by the State sponsored religion of atheism and agnosticism. Atheism, in the strictest sense of the word, is a religion in itself with MAN as the object of worship ( I am the sole determinant of right and wrong and I am an end unto myself). Jefferson would never agree with the modern day "tyranny" of imposing government sponsored censorship and imposition of anti- religious values on the "free exercise" of those religious values as we see happening in the courts and government administrative state entities as we see in today's political climate. There is another post in the Hubski newsletter about the "intolerance of the left" ( by a left leaning person) that is appropriate in this setting. In concluding, many focus only on Jefferson for historical context, but forget the other 55 individuals responsible for our founding. It seems we "pick and choose" which ones we want to quote in order to uphold our personal world view instead of taking in the whole body of history and evidence that might be contradict ice to Jefferson's personal beliefs. He, by the way, was an ardent "church goer" which, many times, is completely left out of the narrative . Records of Thomas Jefferson's church-going habits are far from complete. However, evidence does exist of his involvement with and attendance at local churches throughout his life. His accounts record donations to a number of different churches in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and in Charlottesville.4 As a young man, Jefferson served as a vestryman in Fredericksville Parish (Albemarle County).5 Margaret Bayard Smith, in her memoir The First Forty Years of Washington Society, recalled: "During the first winter, Mr. Jefferson regularly attended service on the sabbath-day in the humble church. The congregation seldom exceeded 50 or 60, but generally consisted of about a score of hearers. He could have had no motive for this regular attendance, but that of respect for public worship, choice of place or preacher he had not, as this, with the exception of a little Catholic chapel was the only church in the new city. The custom of preaching in the Hall of Representatives had not then been attempted, though after it was established Mr. Jefferson during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary."6 Henry S. Randall, who interviewed Jefferson's family members for his three-volume Life of Thomas Jefferson, claimed that Jefferson "attended church with as much regularity as most of the members of the congregation - sometimes going alone on horseback, when his family remained at home."7
Yes, the letter to the Danbury Baptists is taken way out of context today. It NEVER was made to construct a "censorship of religious expression" in either private or public settings. It's main construct was to say that a governmental body should not show preference (in this case one denomination over another which would dictate a "state sponsored establishment") to one particular body of believers as did the Church of England (and persecuted all who differed or dissented). This was one of the main premises of finding the "New World" and to establish religious freedom (not banning religion in the public sector). This premise is supported by over 150 years of both public displays and case law. So, to use this as an "edict to restrict" public religious expression is would have been anathema to the Founders. The same people who safeguarded those expressions in the First Amendment for both believers and non-believers and to allow other religions to practice in our country were mostly religious people (mainly Christians). There was only one Deist who signed the Declaration and two that contributed to the Constitution. They are: Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence Religious Affiliation # of signers % of signers Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1% Congregationalist 13 23.2% Presbyterian 12 21.4% Quaker 2 3.6% Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6% Catholic 1 1.8% TOTAL 56 100% Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian George Walton Georgia Episcopalian John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian William Paca Maryland Episcopalian Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian William Floyd New York Presbyterian Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s. Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document. From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138: Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4% Presbyterian 16 29.1% Congregationalist 8 14.5% Quaker 3 5.5% Catholic 2 3.6% Methodist 2 3.6% Lutheran 2 3.6% Dutch Reformed 2 3.6% TOTAL 55 100% Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian