yes, sometimes.

Thanks. I went and read the entire treaty again. Have you read it, or are you just relying on what some Christian apologist says? Here's a link to the treaty, in case you'd like to read it:

http://www.yale.edu/...barbary/bar1796t.htm

I don't see that it changes very much the context of how I understood it, but thanks anyway.


excerpt from: http://www.ffrf.org/..._july97/tripoli.html

"John Adams, in his proclamation of the treaty, said he had "seen and considered the said Treaty" and "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had agreed to accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." ... Article VI of the United States Constitution made this treaty doubly binding by saying: "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus Article XI was made valid for the United States, and it should now be treasured as a basic document for the American doctrine of the separation of Church and State."

I have no comment on the rest of the long diatribe that you snipped from an apologist website, as it has nothing to do with what I said, namely that the 5th senate passed, and a founding father president signed, a treaty that contained this text. Which, regardless of the spin you wish to apply, it did.

---

---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

I guess you are actually responding to me.

Sorry, don't know diddle about Taoism, but it might fit the bill. I specifically said that my daughter thought she was a Buddhist, and that was fine by me.

I don't know how you can charactize Christianity as being narrowminded. I don't see that at all. I don't know if that reaction is from the talking heads on TV or the NY Times, or your actual upbringing when your intellect was too ill formed to deal with complex issues, but I don't think it reflects reality at all.

Even the concept of hell seems a bit strained. You won't find much mention of that concept in the Bible. Modern notions extend from Dante from what I can tell. It was never a part of my Catholic upbringing from what I can remember. There is the concept of the Final Judgment in which the souls that make the cut get to stay with God, but that is not the concept of hell. Some more knowledgeable here will probably contradict me.

There is the issue of right and wrong. That is probably your real problem. Christians and followers of other serious religions tend to believe that a great many things are either right or wrong. Those who wish no such judgment form a relativistic value system which basically amounts to no value system at all. Such people often feel threatened by those who profess adherence to a fixed set a values, thus explaining a great many of the posts on this board.

That's probably because there doesn't seem to be a lot of info in the wild about Taoism, and the stuff I've found seems to not be able to explain it very well, as it seems to be wrapped up a little in a ball of "You've gotta do it to understand it".

Here's a link, if you wanna learn a little something about it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm

---

---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

I understand why you would think that is the case, but your logic doesn't hold up. The idea is a neutral public body that doesn't endorse or promote religion or a belief in anyone's god. I'm sure you're happy with the way things are, you don't see the conflict. And it is NOT just atheists calling for the separation of church and state. Believe it or not, there are religious organizations who understand that preserving the separation is in their best interest.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

"I don't see that at all. I don't know if that reaction is from the talking heads on TV or the NY Times, or your actual upbringing when your intellect was too ill formed to deal with complex issues, but I don't think it reflects reality at all."

You illustrate my point perfectly. Young children's intellect may be too ill formed to deal with complex issues. Is this kind of confusion necessary in order to raise children with proper values? Just a thought.

How can you say there isn't "much mention of that concept" regarding hell in the bible? I could probably find a hundred or so such references. You seem to gloss over the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth" part with your "make the cut to stay with god" statement.

I have a few honest questions for you, with no intent other than to learn what you do believe:

1. Do you believe the bible literally, and the miracles it describes? Immaculate Conception, Noah's Ark, Jonah living in a fish, rising from the dead - or are these allegorical?

2. Is there a Heaven and Hell, as described in Revelations? Do only Christians enter heaven, with faithful followers of other non-christian religions bound for hell as the bible states?

3. Will there be a rapture as described in Revelations, and will you disappear on that day? Will your family members who are not with God get left behind?

I know there are watered-down versions of Christianity that downplay these elements, but between my fundamentalist background and living in the South, I probably have had more exposure to the Bob Jones variety.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

For what it is worth, I don't believe the Bible literally, but more as poetry. I do believe the parts describing the life of Jesus pretty literally, including most or all of the miracles. I don't put much faith in the Immaculate Conception, think Noah's Ark probably happened in some form, and think the story of Jonah was just a good story to teach a lesson.

Don't know about heaven, but I certainly hope it is not a Christians only club. If so, not sure I want to join. Hell sounds like a children's story to me.

I don't put any faith whatever in the book of Revelations.

These opinions are worth exactly what you paid for them.

Thanks for the insight. I've always been curious about how and why people interperet it the way they do. I don't think I've ever found two believers that held exactly the same viewpoints. Like holy snowflakes.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I am not sure any of it qualifies as insight.

Suprising...

Do you believe the Genesis creation story literally? If not, why the hostility to evolution?

---

_______________________________________________

If by Genesis taken literally you mean the seven day drill, then no, I don't believe that. If you think about the concepts and language available at the time though, it is not a bad description. I haven't seen a translation of the phrase 100 million years or Pre Cambrian Era into whatever language Moses or whoever spoke.

I don't consider myself hostile to evolution, just that the theory is full of holes. It is either wrong or incomplete.

You recently said that you would have answered on the Pew survey that living things "have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." rather than "evolved over time".

The fact that you would pick an obviously false answer over one you view as "incomplete" - sure sounds like you're hostile to even the very word evolution.

---

_______________________________________________

Apparently in your world http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/index.htm is the only place to find history on the founders. But if you peal the onion back a bit you will learn something. I am not sure where Wallbuilders got its 24 of 56 number, but after doing a short bit of research it is easy to see how they can come up with it.

First Go here- http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html Where you will find a short bibliography on each of the founders including those who did not sign but were part of the Continental Congress and various other parts of the founding of our nation. If you care to read the profiles of each man you will come to a curios conclusion- That a large number of them were religious, and Christian. The info on the web site does not focus on religion, but rather their participation in the formation of this nation. But even so religion still makes it way into the profiles, to a surprise amount since the focus is not religion. Also in the profiles in many cases were the educational backgrounds of the founders, which of course should cause a person to ask what the school was founded on and taught back in the 1700’s. Don’t worry I did some of the work for you, please read below. Everything in red is copied from another web page to make it easy to tell what I wrote vs what was copied.

From the opening page of the web site, after you click on the overview button.

Longevity and Family Life

For their era, the delegates to the convention (like the signers of the Declaration of Independence) were remarkably long-lived. Their average age at death was almost 67. Johnson reached the age of 92, and Few, Franklin, Madison, Williamson, and Wythe lived into their eighties. Fifteen or sixteen (depending on Fitzsimmon's exact age) passed away in their eighth decade, and 20 or 21 in their sixties. Eight lived into their fifties; five lived only into their forties, and two of them (Hamilton and Spa ight) were killed in duels. The first to die was Houston in 1788; the last, Madison in 1836.

Most of the delegates married and raised children. Sherman fathered the largest family, 15 children by 2 wives. At least nine (Bassett, Brearly, Johnson, Mason, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth, Pinckney, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) married more than once. F our (Baldwin, Gilman, Jenifer, and Alexander Martin) were lifelong 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. Onl y two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

I don’t have the time to read and copy every profile for you, but I did read and copy a few from the first four states listed on the web page, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia and Maryland. Below are a few snips for some of the founders from each state.

Ellsworth -Oliver Ellsworth was born on April 29, 1745, in Windsor, CT, to Capt. David and Jemima Ellsworth. He entered Yale in 1762 but transferred to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) at the end of his second year. He continued to study theology and received his A.B. degree after 2 years. Soon afterward, however, Ellsworth turned to the law. After 4 years of study, he was admitted to the bar in 1771. The next year Ellsworth married Abigail Wolcott.

Johnson- William Samuel Johnson was the son of Samuel Johnson, the first president of King's College (later Columbia College and University). William was born at Stratford, CT, in 1727. His father, who was a well-known Anglican clergyman-philosopher, prepared him for college and he graduated from Yale in 1744. About 3 years later he won a master of arts degree from the same institution and an honorary master's from Harvard.

Bassett- Twice married, to Ann Ennals and a woman named Bruff, Bassett fathered several children. He was a devout Methodist, held religious meetings at Bohemia Manor, and supported the church financially. He died in 1815 at the age of 70 and is interred at the Wilmington and Brandywine Cemetery, Wilmington, DE

Broom- Broom also found time for philanthropic and religious activities. He served on the board of trustees of the College of Wilmington and as a lay leader at Old Swedes Church. He died at the age of 58 in 1810 while in Philadelphia on business and was buried there at Christ Church Burial Ground.

Few- Few's career continued to blossom. He served 4 years in the legislature (1802-5) and then as inspector of prisons (1802-10), alderman (1813-14), and U.S. commissioner of loans (1804). From 1804 to 1814 he held a directorship at the Manhattan Bank and later the presidency of City Bank. A devout Methodist, he also donated generously to philanthropic causes.

Carroll- Daniel was born in 1730 at Upper Marlboro, MD. Befitting the son of a wealthy Roman Catholic family, he studied for 6 years (1742-48) under the Jesuits at St. Omer's in Flanders. Then, after a tour of Europe, he sailed home and soon married Eleanor Carroll, apparently a first cousin of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Not much is known about the next two decades of his life except that he backed the War for Independence reluctantly and remained out of the public eye. No doubt he lived the life of a gentleman planter.

McHenry- McHenry returned to his estate near Baltimore and to semiretirement. He remained a loyal Federalist and opposed the War of 1812. He also held the office of president of a Bible society. He died in 1816 at the age of 62, survived by two of his three children. His grave is in Baltimore's Westminster Presbyterian Cemetery

If you read the profiles you will notice that a fair number of the men went to Yale, Harvard or New Jersy College (Princeton) . So you might ask what is the history of these schools. From the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University#History , I copy the following. You will clearly see Yale was founded and built based on Christian principals and philosophy. The important parts are in bold

History

Yale traces its beginnings to "An Act for Liberty to Erect a Collegiate School" passed by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut and dated October 9, 1701. Soon thereafter, a group of ten Congregationalist ministers, all of whom were Harvard alumni, met in Branford, Connecticut, to pool their books to form the school's first library. [1]. The group is now known as The Founders.

Originally called the Collegiate School of Connecticut, the institution opened in the home of its first rector, Abraham Pierson, in Killingworth, Connecticut. In 1716, the college moved to New Haven, Connecticut, where it remains to this day.

In the meanwhile, a rift was forming at Harvard between its sixth president Increase Mather (Harvard A.B., 1656) and the rest of the Harvard clergy, which Mather viewed as increasingly liberal, ecclesiastically lax, and overly broad in Church polity. The relationship worsened after Mather resigned, and the administration repeatedly rejected his son and ideological colleague, Cotton Mather (Harvard A.B., 1678), for the position of the Harvard presidency. The feud caused the Mathers to champion the success of the Collegiate School in the hopes that it would maintain the Puritan religious orthodoxy in a way that Harvard had not [2].

In 1718, at the behest of either Rector Andrew or Governor Gurdon Saltonstall, Cotton Mather contacted a successful businessman in England named Elihu Yale to ask him for financial help in constructing a new building for the college. Yale, who had made a fortune through trade while living in India as a representative of the East India Company, donated nine bales of goods, which were sold for more than £560, a substantial sum at the time. Yale also donated 417 books and a portrait of King George I. Cotton Mather suggested that the school change its name to Yale College in gratitude to its benefactor and to increase the chances that he would give the college another large donation or bequest. Elihu Yale was away in India when the news of the school's name change reached his home in England, a trip from which he never returned. And while he did ultimately leave his fortunes to the "Collegiate School within His Majesties Colony of Connecticot," the institution was never able to successfully lay claim to it. Regardless, the entire institution eventually became Yale University.

Serious American students of theology and divinity, particularly in New England, regarded Hebrew as a classical language, along with Greek and Latin, and essential for study of the Old Testament in the original words. The Reverend Ezra Stiles, president of the College from 1778 to 1795, brought with him his interest in the Hebrew language as a vehicle for studying ancient Biblical texts in their original language (as was common in other prestigious schools, for instance Harvard), requiring all freshmen to study Hebrew (in contrast to Harvard, where all upperclassmen were required to study the language) and is responsible for the Hebrew words "Urim" and "Thummim" on the Yale seal.

Yale College expanded gradually, establishing the Yale Medical School (1810), Yale Divinity School (1822), Yale Law School (1843), Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (1847), the Sheffield Scientific School (1861), and the Yale School of Fine Arts (1869). (The divinity school was founded by Congregationalists who felt that the Harvard Divinity School had become too liberal.) In 1887, as the college continued to grow under the presidency of Timothy Dwight V, Yale College was renamed to Yale University. The university would later add the Yale School of Music (1894), the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (1901), Yale School of Public Health (1915), and the Yale School of Nursing (1923) and reorganize its relationship with the Sheffield Scientific School. The University's youngest school, the Yale School of Management, was founded in 1976.

Yale has the perhaps unfortunate distinction of having been in the forefront of the Ivy League schools (although not by much) in instituting policies in the early twentieth century designed to artificially increase the proportion of upper-class white Christians of notable families in the student body (see Numerus clausus), and was one of the last of the Ivies to eliminate such preferences, beginning with the class of 1970.[3]

See also: Oxbridge rivalry, which documents a similar history in which Cambridge University was founded by dissident scholars from its "rival" Oxford University

The same goes for Harvard, the text below is copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard , important parts in Bold again.

History


Harvard's foundation in 1636 came in the form of an act of the colony's Great and General Court. By all accounts the chief impetus was to allow the training of home-grown clergy so the Puritan colony would not need to rely on immigrating graduates of England's Oxford and Cambridge universities for well-educated pastors, "dreading," as a 1643 brochure put it, "to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." In its first year, seven of the original nine students left to fight in the English Civil War.

Harvard was also founded as a school to educate American Indians in order to train them as ministers among their tribes. Harvard's Charter of 1650 calls for "the education of the English and Indian youth of this Country in knowledge and godliness". Indeed, Harvard and missionaries to the local tribes were intricately connected. The first Bible to be printed in the entire North American continent was printed at Harvard in an Indian language, Massachusett. Termed the Eliot Bible since it was translated by John Eliot, this book was used to facilitate conversion of Indians, ideally by Harvard-educated Indians themselves. Harvard's first American Indian graduate, Caleb Cheeshahteaumuck from the Wampanoag tribe, was a member of the class of 1665. Caleb and other students-- English and American Indian alike-- lived and studied in a dormitory known as the Indian College, which as founded in 1655 under then-President Charles Chauncy. In 1698 it was torn down owing to neglect. The bricks of the former Indian College were later used using its bricks to build the first Stoughton Hall. Today a plaque on the SE side of Matthews Hall in Harvard Yard, the approximate site of the Indian College, commemorates the first American Indian students who lived and studied at Harvard University.

The connection to the Puritans can be seen in the fact that, for its first few centuries of existence, the Harvard Board of Overseers included, along with certain commonwealth officials, the ministers of six local congregations (Boston, Cambridge, Charlestown, Dorchester, Roxbury and Watertown), who today, although no longer so empowered, are still by custom allowed seats on the dais at commencement exercises.

Despite the Puritan atmosphere, from the beginning the intent was to provide a full liberal education such as that offered at European universities, including the rudiments of mathematics and science ('natural philosophy') as well as classical literature and philosophy. Nonetheless, Harvard became the bastion of a distinctly Protestant elite--the so-called Boston Brahmin class--well into the 20th century. Its discriminatory policies against immigrants, Catholics and Jews were partly responsible for the founding of Boston College in the 19th century and Brandeis University in 1948. The social milieu at Harvard is depicted in Owen Wister's Philosophy 4, set in the 1870s, which contrasts the character and demeanor of two undergraduates who "had colonial names (Rogers, I think, and Schuyler)" with that of their tutor, one Oscar Maironi, whose "parents had come over in the steerage." Myron Kaufman's 1957 novel Remember Me to God follows the life of a Jewish undergraduate in 1940s Harvard, navigating the shoals of casual antisemitism as he desperately seeks to become a gentleman, be accepted into The Pudding, and marry the Yankee protestant Wimsy Talbot.

And some more on Princeton from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University Agin the important parts in bold. Getting kind of boring isn’t it? Amazing how easy it was to find this stuff.

History of the University

Established by the “New Light” Presbyterians, Princeton was originally intended to train ministers. The college opened at Elizabeth, New Jersey, under the presidency of Jonathan Dickinson as the College of New Jersey. (It was proposed to name it for the colonial Governor, Jonathan Belcher, but he declined.) Its second president was the father of Aaron Burr; the third was Jonathan Edwards. In 1756 the college moved to Princeton, New Jersey.

From the time of the move to Princeton in 1756 until the construction of Stanhope Hall in 1803, the University's sole building was Nassau Hall, named for William III of England of the House of Orange-Nassau. During the American Revolution, Princeton was occupied by both sides, and the college's buildings were heavily damaged. The Battle of Princeton, fought in a nearby field in January of 1777, proved to be a decisive victory for General George Washington and his troops. Two of Princeton's leading citizens signed the Declaration of Independence, and during the summer of 1783, the Continental Congress met in Nassau Hall, making Princeton the country's capital for four months. The much-abused landmark survived bombardment with cannonballs in the Revolutionary War when General Washington struggled to wrest the building from British control, as well as later fires that left only its walls standing 1802 and 1855, and innumerable minor insults. Rebuilt by Joseph Henry Latrobe, John Notman, and John Witherspoon, the modern Nassau Hall has been much revised and expanded from the Robert Smith-designed original. Over the centuries, its role shifted from an all-purpose building, comprising office, dormitory, library, and classroom space, to classrooms only, to its present role as the administrative center of the university. (Princeton Companion)

The Princeton Theological Seminary was separated from Princeton in 1812, since the Presbyterians wanted their ministers to have more theological training, and the faculty and students would be content with less. This reduced the student body and the external support for Princeton for some time.





Nassau Hall, the University's oldest building. Note the tiger sculptures beside the steps.

The university was arguably an obscure backwater when President James McCosh took office in 1868. During his two decades in power, he overhauled the curriculum, oversaw an expansion of inquiry into the sciences, and supervised the addition of a number of buildings in the High Victorian Gothic style to the campus. (Princeton Companion) The oft-photographed McCosh Hall is named in his honor.

In 1896, the college officially changed its name from the College of New Jersey to Princeton University to honor the town in which it resided. During this year, the College also underwent large expansion and officially became a university. Under Woodrow Wilson, Princeton introduced the preceptorial system (1905), a then-unique concept that replaced the standard lecture method of teaching with a more personal form where small groups of students, or precepts, could interact with a single instructor, or preceptor, in their field of interest.

In 1930, the Institute for Advanced Study, not affiliated with the University, was founded in Princeton and became the first residential institute for scholars in the country, with Albert Einstein appointed as one of its first professors. The 20th century has seen an influx of scholars, research personnel, and corporations to Princeton from all parts of the world.

In 1969, Princeton University first admitted women as undergraduates. In 1887, the university had actually maintained and staffed a sister coIlege in the town of Princeton on Evelyn and Nassau streets, called the Evelyn College for Women, which was closed after roughly a decade of operation. Years later the administration decided to admit women and turned to the issue of transforming the school's operations and facilities into a female-friendly campus. The administration barely finished these plans by April 1969, when the admission's office had to start mailing out its acceptance letters. Its five-year coeducation plan provided $7.8 million for the development of new facilities that would eventually house and educate 650 women students at Princeton by 1974. Ultimately, 148 women, consisting of 100 freshwomen and transfer students of other years, entered Princeton on September 6, 1969 amidst a frenzy of media ogling and ribbing.

Princeton University has been home to scholars, scientists, writers, and statesmen, including three United States presidents, Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, and John F. Kennedy, who spent his freshman fall at the University before leaving due to illness; he later enrolled at Harvard. The entertainer and civil rights figure Paul Robeson grew up in the Borough of Princeton, and artisans from Italy, Scotland, and Ireland have contributed to the town's architectural history. This legacy, spanning the entire history of American architecture, is preserved through buildings by such architects as Benjamin Latrobe, Ralph Adams Cram, McKim, Mead & White, Robert Venturi, and Michael Graves.

I could research every school these men went to but the three above cover quite a few of the founders, and I hope you can get the picture from them.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

In your usual way you do nothing to dispute or counter what I post, instead you simply sling broad sweeping statements about some "right wing wacko crap" and run like a scared sissy. Typical



Nuff said.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

From Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

I wonder why the founders choose to not count Sundays in the ten day limit to sign a bill? Could it be becasue Sunday is the Christian day of sabbath? Or is is it becasue because the founders knew that one day the NFL would play on Sundays?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

Breking news- The founders talked about God in the Declaration of Indepenence, and accoring to the founders our rights are derived from God, read below.



In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When[/url] in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He[/url] has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We[/url], therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

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.

---

John Hancock[/url]

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

Your original post said that a large percentage of the signers had "bible school degrees". Your argument in support of that statement, that many of the signers were religious, or were involved in religious movements, or went to schools whose origins were related to religion, is a stretch. By your reasoning, my wife, who has a degree from Santa Clara University in California (a Jesuit institution), has a bible school degree.

The statement is BS, and you just won't admit it, because it'll cast doubt on the validity of your source(s).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"