Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
hootsbox's profile

A hardworking gent in the automotive industry (30+ years). I like being a faithful husband to a great wife, and an attentive grandfather to the five grandchildren we currently have. I am unashamedly a Christian, and I like public policy exchanges (not political sound byte crap!), and I believe the founders had it right when they warned that an uniformed and ignorant electorate is one of the greatest dangers to the Constitutional Republic.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."....Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

following: 10
followed tags: 1
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 2399 days
style: spring

comments 2
hootsbox  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: What To Do About This Now

So, what do we actually know and not provide conjecture for? One, the DNC and the Clinton campaign, after the, "never Trumper conservatives , who aren't much better", financed a mostly false document, with a foreign person of interest, with proven collusion with Russians, which was used to obtain, without clear disclosure to the FISA court, a warrant to monitor a low level person, who did have some contact with Trump but mostly with his own business interests, and open a monitoring program on an opposition party (and it would be wrong if it were the opposite party). The person who was the object of this monitoring, has NEVER been charged, NEVER been indicted, and roams around free to this day. How is it that an FBI Director begins an exoneration letter, months before the investigation is completed, of the DNC candidate before even finishing questioning witnesses? How is it that the FBI Director, in complete violation of his constitutional charge (to investigate) recommends that no charges be made against a clear violator of explicit law (destruction of evidence under Congressional subpoena which is a Federal crime) which is NOT the role of the FBI (I would fire his out of order BUTT too!) How is it that a clear (Trump or anybody else it might be) hater, changes the verbiage, that Comey regurgitated, from "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless" based on proven, email and text documented bigoted statements. How is it that all these people escape the purview of a special counsel? Let us quit the innuendo and stick to the facts. I would not put it past the FBI and the "Deep State" of unelected power brokers, to do a piss poor job either.

hootsbox  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: The End of Free and Open Discussion?

Thanks for posting the comments the writer alluded to in her article. She hid nothing like many others do.

Well, well, even USA today doesn't necessarily agree with this take. It is amazing the "talking points syndrome" continues with inaccurate reporting. We don't have many real journalists any more; we have opinionists masquerading as journalists.

Yes, like many of the Northern States resisted the passage of the 14th Ammendment.......hmmmmm!

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

We, as males, don't always have the luxury of "stalls", therefore we prefer as much privacy as we can get.

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?

However, since you quote Jefferson, let’s take some stories from the Monticello website on his religious beliefs and life beliefs:

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

John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian

Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian

Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian

George Washington Virginia Episcopalian

Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian

James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian

Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist

Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran

William Few Georgia Methodist

Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist

Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian

James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian

William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian

William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian

Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian

Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian

Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian

John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian

John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian

George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian

Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran

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.

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!

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".

posts and shares 3/0