Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

And here, once again, I find myself returning from a thread of Mr. A.B.'s; this time, his thread over in "Religion and Politics", where the topic has to do with religion entering into, or staying out of, OUR American politics!

And that, of course, brings us back to this concept of "liberty", here in OUR America.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: 

a) Freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States constitution, from constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, religious beliefs, and the practice of religion. 

b) Freedom to entertain and express any or no system of religious opinions, and to engage in or refrain from any form of religious observance or public or private religious worship, not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and the general welfare!

- Black's Law Dictionary

SO!

There it is in a nutshell!

Or is it, really?

In what is being called the "post-9/11 environment", is OUR Constitution now an impediment to "national security" as George W. Bush and the Republicans would have us believe?

Which is to say, "IN THE ALLEGED "POST-9/11 ENVIRONMENT, IS THE CONCEPT OF AN AMERICA WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NO LONGER A VALID CONCEPT"?

Is OUR America now passe?

That is the point, as I see it, to these discussions that we are having in here, and elsewhere out there in the world, and in other parts of this forum, such as Mr. A.B's thread in "Religion and Politics".

And how do I come to this "position"?

Well, let us look more closely, and carefully, at the definition of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN OUR AMERICA above, for that answer, especially that part about RELIGIOUS LIBERTY in OUR America incuding "Freedom", as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, from constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, religious beliefs, and the practice of religion; AND "Freedom" to entertain and express no system of religious opinions, and to refrain from any form of religious observance or public or private religious worship, not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and the general welfare.

And here, I want to make clear why I go to Black's Law Dictionary for my definitions, instead of just a standard lay-person's dictionary, and it is because this thing of liberty is a legal concept here in OUR America, and so, I want to use the words and definitions that lawyers and judges do, when talking about these same matters; as it is those words which form the precedents here, and not my mere opinions on some subject or other, as though we were talking about angels dancing on the heads of pins, or whether or not there should be a hockey season this year, despite the wishes of the owners, or players' association to have it not be so!

Is LIBERTY a subjective concept, or an objective concept, here in OUR America?

And what is it with me and this "Parson's Cause" anyway, someone might ask, and you know, that is a good and fair question, since we are talking the passage of some 250 years give or take, between then and now, and exactly how does any of that tie into this "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM" argument that I am trying to make in here, now, as well?

Well, for that answer, I first have to say that by way of background, I myself have been dealing with constitutional issues for these last thirty years or better, and in the course of that time, I have actually pressed these constitutional issues in various courts of law, and although I am not a lawyer, I have won, and so, it is based upon this actual experience, and the precedents that have been set, and the legal arguments that have been pressed forth in the course of securing those decisions, that I say what I do say in here, content as I am to do so, based upon this experience, in conjunction with what I feel is evidence sufficient to make and carry my cause forward in here, as it is most definitely a Constitutional crisis of sorts that we are facing, here in OUR America these days, and so, we should make every effort to understand just how and why this might be so!

And for that answer, I would first take us to http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci for information on George W. Bush's "OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES", which is actually a Republican political front lodged within the structure of the American White House that we are footing the bills for, despite a Constitutional requirement for the separation of church and state, which equates in part to "NO GOVERNMENT TAXATION" to support religion, here in OUR America.

Now, is this a "gray area", as it is said of things that are murky and unclear, here, in OUR America?

You bet it is!

BUT ...

In this case, it is not quite so murky as it may seem on first glance, BECAUSE of the power of this internet, and OUR present-day ability to have a literal wealth of information from official sources, right at OUR fingertips, IN AN INSTANT, as I have done here, in retrieving this information on faith-based initiatives directly from the American White House itself.

And without further ado, here, let us take a moment and carefully read the following paragraph for its "content:, which is directly relevant to this separation of church and state issue that is presently before us, here in OUR America:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final rule

Summary: This final rule implements executive branch policy that, within the framework of constitutional church-state guidelines, faith-based organizations should be able to compete on an equal footing with other organizations for HHS funding without impairing the religious character of such organizations.

It revises HHS regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in HHS programs and to ensure that these programs are implemented in a manner consistent with applicable statutes and the requirements of the Constitution, including the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

end quotes

It revises HHS regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in HHS programs and to ensure ......

What exactly does this mean, "it revises"?

Revises what?

And by whom?

Any quesses?

Stay tuned!

The "LIBERTIES" that you are protecting in here just might be your own!

[Livyjr]

And it is indeed a continuing learning experience for me, anyway, in here, trying to intelligently put forth in a coherent, comprehensive manner issues which I as an older American think impact on our daily lives in an unfavorable manner, here in OUR America of today; and as I try to do that, communicate in a more effective manner, I am continually looking at my own past methods of communication, and based on that review, I am continuing to revise how I present information in here, so that the "message" is not completely lost in the transmission!

One case in point is this business with Iraq and oil, and the basis for support of American dollars that jeffmoskin has brought up on several occasions in here.

Now, that is indeed "esoteric" to many people, and so, it is difficult to make that readily comprehensible, BECAUSE of the sheer amount of information that has to be assimilated to really understand how that can even be an issue, let alone one we should be concerned about, or not concerned about, here in OUR America of today.

When I was posting on the old John Kerry forum, I posted some technical papers on that exact subject and you can say two things for them, to wit:

a) they are dry; and

b) they are long!

And that combination just serves to turn people right off, and with good measure, and so, the information required to make intelligent decisions as a voter here in OUR America ends up not being transmitted, and OUR democracy suffers for that, in ways that are just not long-term healthy for any democracy, and specifically OURS, in this case, since OURS is the only one that we can do anything about "protecting and safeguarding", as is OUR continuing duty as American citizens.

So what I am now doing is breaking this constitutional issue up into very small pieces right now, to make it comprehensible, and that is going to mean a lot of short posts to say the same thing one long one would say, but I think, for now, this is just the better method of communicating these points that I am going to make in here, about the possible abuse of the office of the president of America by Mr. George W. Bush, the present incumbent, who appears to be setting himself up in that office more as a king, than as a president, and that is a development which I think we all ought to spend some time watching and considering, and once again, to do that, I have gone directly to the "HORSE'S MOUTH" at http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci for this following information on what Mr. Bush is, or might be doing with OUR American tax dollars in conjunction with HIS faith-based initiatives, here in OUR America:

"President George W. Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative represents a fresh start and bold new approach to government's role in helping those in need."

"Too often the government has ignored or impeded the efforts of faith-based and community organizations."

"Their compassionate efforts to improve their communities have been needlessly and improperly inhibited by bureaucratic red tape and restrictions placed on funding."

"The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative -- located in ten Federal agencies -- are working to support the essential work of these important organizations."

"Their goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers."

[jeffmoskin]

And here, jeffmoskin, since I have unilaterally decided to "watch" and "track" this race in here, in this thread, and since we are not "on the scene" as you are, as our correspondent on the scene out there in sunny L.A., where this contest is taking place, could you provide us with some background on the mood of the voters out there, vis-a-vis this alleged corruption?

Is the "corruption" an issue, do you think, or is it just a "non-starter" as the wags and pundits on TV like to say these days; just another "ho-hum" thing as it "happens all the time, now", here in OUR America?

And another area where we need some background is with respect to the sheer size of the City of Los Angeles itself, which is actually a city the size of the county where I live, more or less.

Could you flesh out for us the demograhics a little more perhaps, so that those of us in here who are not from there can better appreciate the appeal the different candidates have to various factions out there.

For example, in another post above, you made reference to prejudices of the "Valley people", I think it was!

Could you amplify on that, perhaps, for our edification, what that really means to "politics, L.A style"?

And it will be interesting to see just how close L.A. politics "track" as compared with politics in other areas of OUR America!

After all, ploys remain ploys, and prejudices are as old as mankind, and very enduring in their character, I have found, and so ......

First of all, the "Mayor" in L.A. is really a "bully pulpit" job. The City Council really does all the work. For demographics, the West Valley is largely white, middle class, tends to be slightly racist (IMHO) and supported Hahn in the last election. East L.A. is totally hispanic and is presumed to go for Villaraigosa.

Apropos of nothing, I met Mr. Villaraigosa at a dinner about 10 years ago. He is a warm and charming individual, totally committed to community work (the dinner was to honor a Chinese-American woman who had helped bring medical services to the community - it earned him ZERO political points. It was just something he felt he should attend).

Needless to say, I am not unbiased.

Today's polls have all 3 in a dead heat.

As someone once said...

Stay tuned!

Live. Right here,

In OUR America.

This is your roving reporter, err... scratch that. I don't want any association with ROVE... your L.A. reporter signing off.

[Livyjr]

First of all, the "Mayor" in L.A. is really a "bully pulpit" job.

The City Council really does all the work.

For demographics, the West Valley is largely white, middle class, tends to be slightly racist (IMHO) and supported Hahn in the last election.

East L.A. is totally hispanic and is presumed to go for Villaraigosa.

This is your roving reporter, err... scratch that. I don't want any association with ROVE... your L.A. reporter signing off.

And well done, jeffmoskin, well done, indeed!

Interesting analysis indeed!

You know, jeffmoskin, while you and I are sometimes, or perhaps often, "tongue-in-cheek", this "business" of "politics" is really quite important, to us all, especially when charges of corruption are involved, and I am always surprised at how little people really know about right where they live!

Now, of course, a question that would arise is "SO WHAT", and to be truthful, I have no answer for that, and don't pretend to.

All I know is what I know, and my beliefs on getting through life are my own, and maybe they won't work for anyone but me!

In the meantime, while I am down here on earth, I personally like to have some idea as to what was happeneing on the day that I was born, so to speak, so that I can then pick my own steps carefully, so as to not get run down by the mob, or the crowd, or whatever, and jeffmoskin, THAT DOES HAPPEN, and has, especially in the early days of this nation's history, and well, all through right up to this time, and it is all of that stuff, the good, and the questionable, which makes us who we are, in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the rest of the world as well.

SO?

What about the "corruption" side, then, is it a non-issue in Los Angeles?

[Livyjr]

And here, before I get back to other matters, is the latest to come down the pike concerning our future belligerent actions towards other soverign nations on the face of this earth, which in turn, of course, will have them acting belligerent towards us, and well, you know how that all goes, and if you don't, you have led either a very sheltered life, or you are still quite young, and so, without experience of what happens when force is threatened against another, be it human being, or nation-state:

Europe - AP

"U.S.: Terrorists in Syria Bombed Tel Aviv"

15 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

LONDON - The Bush administration is applying its strongest pressure to date on Syria, insisting on an immediate withdrawal from neighboring Lebanon and blaming terrorists based in Syria for last week's deadly suicide attack in Israel.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Syria is "out of step" with growing desire for democracy in the Middle East.

International resolve is firm that Syria must no longer hold political and military control over its smaller neighbor, Rice said Tuesday.

Rice was in London for an international conference on Palestinian security and government reform, which the Bush administration has called a building block for wider democratic change in the region.

On the issue of Iran's nuclear program, Rice indicated that the administration was working with European leaders on a plan to offer Iran economic incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

The United States has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

"We are designing, I think, an important common strategy with Europe so that Iran knows there is no other way," Rice said in a brief interview aired Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Until recently, the Bush administration has opposed any rewards for Tehran's cooperation.

But during the president's trip overseas last week, European leaders urged him to join them in offering incentives such as possible membership at some time for Iran in the World Trade Organization.

While in London, Rice also met briefly with Canada's foreign minister and "explained her disappointment" over Canada's refusal to join a U.S.-led anti-ballistic missile shield program, an administration official said Tuesday.

She was returning to Washington on Wednesday.

Rice has put off a planned April visit to Ottawa amid U.S. displeasure over the Canadian decision.

The administration said Rice wants to reschedule quickly, but no new date has been set.

In Washington, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Syria was home base for the terrorist attack in Israel that rocked the latest efforts for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We do have firm evidence that the bombing in Tel Aviv was not only authorized by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus, but that Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus participated in the planning," the spokesman said.

President Bush made a similar point during a White House meeting with congressional leaders, participants said, and so did Rice while in London.

All key Lebanese political decisions are assumed to have a stamp of approval from the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Huge street demonstrations and Monday's resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese government marked the most serious challenge to Syrian authority in Lebanon since the end of the civil war that killed 150,000 and crushed the Lebanese economy in the 1970s and 1980s.

The events also were an opening for the Bush administration to press its wider goal of democracy across the Middle East and to throw a spotlight on what the United States contends is long-standing Syrian support for terrorists who are trying to undermine progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Rice said the Lebanese must be allowed to choose their own political future in elections this spring.

That choice must be independent of "contaminating influences," she said, underscoring a joint U.S.-French statement on Tuesday and a United Nations resolution last fall.

"I think it's one of the strongest statements in a long time about what needs to happen in Lebanon," Rice said.

At a news conference with French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, Rice said their two countries would support the scheduled election in Lebanon, perhaps by sending observers and monitors.

She also suggested international peacekeepers might be needed eventually and could help secure democracy for the Lebanese if Syria were to withdraw.

She gave no details, and later said it was too soon to talk about the specifics of security in Lebanon after a hypothetical Syrian exit.

Syrian President Bashar Assad indicated in an interview with Time magazine that he would withdraw Syria's 15,000 troops from Lebanon "maybe in the next few months."

Later, however, a Syrian official speaking on condition of anonymity in Damascus questioned whether it could occur within months.
___

On the Net: State Department's Lebanon site:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm

[Livyjr]

And without further ado, here, let us take a moment and carefully read the following paragraph for its "content:, which is directly relevant to this separation of church and state issue that is presently before us, here in OUR America:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final rule

Summary: This final rule implements executive branch policy that, within the framework of constitutional church-state guidelines, faith-based organizations should be able to compete on an equal footing with other organizations for HHS funding without impairing the religious character of such organizations.

It revises HHS regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in HHS programs and to ensure that these programs are implemented in a manner consistent with applicable statutes and the requirements of the Constitution, including the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

end quotes

It revises HHS regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in HHS programs and to ensure ......

What exactly does this mean, "it revises"?

Revises what?

And by whom?

Any quesses?

Stay tuned!

The "LIBERTIES" that you are protecting in here just might be your own!

And while we are on this topic, of the very thin, if even that, line of division between religion and politics in this country, we have as follows:

Supreme Court - AP

"High Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases'

35 minutes ago

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in two cases involving displays in Texas and Kentucky.

It is the first time since 1980 the high court is tackling the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country.

At issue is whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion," or simply represent a secular tribute to America's legal heritage.

The question has sparked dozens of heated legal battles, including one in Alabama by Roy Moore.

He lost his job as chief justice a year ago after defying a federal order to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.

Demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court in the icy cold Tuesday night for a candlelight vigil, and rallies were expected Wednesday morning.

More than 50 groups have filed "friend-of-the-court" briefs weighing in on the issue.

While the cases strictly involve Ten Commandments displays, a broad ruling could define the proper place of religion in public life — from use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A decision is expected by late June.

The Bush administration, which sided with a California school district last year to keep "God" in the Pledge, is now joining Texas and Kentucky officials to back the Ten Commandments displays.

"Countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court's own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue."

"Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased," writes Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his court filing.

Erwin Chemerinsky, representing a homeless man suing to have the Texas display removed, countered:

"The government's symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself."

"In large letters, the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"

Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.

In the Texas case, Thomas Van Orden lost his lawsuit to have a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds.

The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the exhibit to the state in 1961, and it was installed about 75 feet from the Capitol in Austin.

The group gave thousands of similar monuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s, and those have been the subject of multiple court fights.

Two Kentucky counties, meanwhile, hung framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and added other documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, after the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the display.

While one lower court found the Texas display to be predominantly nonreligious because it was one of 17 monuments in a 22-acre park, another court struck down the Kentucky displays as lacking a "secular purpose."

Kentucky's modification of the display was a "sham" for the religious intent behind it, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.

Since then, more than two dozen courts have ruled in conflicting ways on displays in various public contexts.

Justices have outlined several different tests in recent years to determine their constitutionality:

_secular purpose; was there religious motive?

_endorsement; do they show a government neutrality toward religion?

_coercion; do they place impermissible pressure, such as school prayer?

_historical practice; are they part of the "fabric of our society," such as legislative prayer?

The Supreme Court frieze, for instance, depicts Moses and the tablets as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Because it includes secular figures in a way that doesn't endorse religion, the display would be constitutional, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested in a 1989 ruling.

The cases are Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.
___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[Livyjr]

And while we are on this topic, of the very thin, if even that, line of division between religion and politics in this country, we have as follows:

Supreme Court - AP

"High Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases'

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in two cases involving displays in Texas and Kentucky.

It is the first time since 1980 the high court is tackling the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country.

At issue is whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion," or simply represent a secular tribute to America's legal heritage.

While the cases strictly involve Ten Commandments displays, a broad ruling could define the proper place of religion in public life — from use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A decision is expected by late June.

The Bush administration, which sided with a California school district last year to keep "God" in the Pledge, is now joining Texas and Kentucky officials to back the Ten Commandments displays.

"Countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court's own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue."

"Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased," writes Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his court filing.

Erwin Chemerinsky, representing a homeless man suing to have the Texas display removed, countered:

"The government's symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself."

"In large letters, the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"

Justices have outlined several different tests in recent years to determine their constitutionality:

_secular purpose; was there religious motive?

_endorsement; do they show a government neutrality toward religion?

_coercion; do they place impermissible pressure, such as school prayer?

_historical practice; are they part of the "fabric of our society," such as legislative prayer?

And where exactly am I on all of this, or any of this, or some of this?

No where, actually!

What a lot of to-do about nothing, if you hear the name of "God" uttered or not, or see the "TEN COMMANDMENTS", which are words for everyone to try and live by, I thought, anyway!

Now, if "HAVING" to say the name of "GOD" to get access to government becomes an issue, THEN, I will have an issue, but this business about the TEN COMMANDMENTS?

I was born, as I have said, at the end of WWII, and when I went to school, EVERY SCHOOL DAY, we had a moment of silent prayer, and we said the Pledge of Allegiance, WHICH HAD NO "under God" in it at that time, and we sang the song "My Country, Tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty, of Thee, I sing ...", and you know what, I don't think I got warped or twisted too far out of shape, anyway, by all of that "exposure" to mere words!

Yes, folks, mere words!

Combinations of letters on a piece of paper!

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me!"

Doesn't anyone else in America remember that, or is it untrue?

And it must be, because an awful lot of people here in OUR America seem to be made of pretty flimsy stuff, if they are so hurt by these mere words, which have no meaning at all, until we give those words meaning, and we do that, not by speaking them, BUT BY HOW WE LIVE, each moment of our lives.

And where the hell does a homeless man get money to buy himself a lawyer fancy enough to get a case all the way to the United States Supreme Court?

That is my question this morning!

Does anyone know how much it costs to get a case to the United States Supreme Court, and what is involved, just to get the case filed, let alone heard?

And we are to believe that a homeless man has mustered up that kind of money?

Yeah, right!

I am near to being homeless, myself, and I attempted to get to the United States Supreme Court with a constitutional rights case, and the cost and effort of doing that, for me, made it a complete and total impossibility.

For one thing, your papers must actually be bound, just like a book, and you need something like 30 copies, and on and on and on, and that was just to GET TO THE DOOR!

SO?

What's the real story here then, with this alleged homeless man, filing a case with the United States Supreme Court?

And how on earth did a homeless man ever pass the three-part test for standing in the first place?

Curious!

How was he harmed?

If he is homeless, how can he claim standing, since if you have no "home", you really have no "fixed place" where harm of that sort, assuming there even is any, can befall you?

If you are sleeping under a tree, or a shrub, or a bush, and someone places a statue of the Ten Commandments near to where you are sleeping, OUTSIDE, under a tree, does that really "HARM" you?

And that answer must be yes, since this homeless guy, who obviously is living better than I, has made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, while I, who have had a First Amendment "freedom of responsible speech" case pending forever now in Federal District Court, am out in the cold, unable to even get the "discovery" in Federal District Court that is guaranteed AS A MATTER OF LAW to pornographers, by the United States Supreme Court.

Curious!

Oh, well.

Maybe I should have spit on the flag, or something, or tore up a copy of the Magna Carta, or became a pornographer myself, and then, like this homeless man, I too would be a darling of the media, AND THE COURTS, as well, since government retaliation to suppress and repress responsible speech attacking proven government corruption in my area of America sure does not seem to be a "winner" with the federal courts, where I am anyway.

And as I said before, oh well .......

Must be something about being born under the right or wrong star, or something like that, because it sure does not seem to be about the law!

[Livyjr]

And it is back to Iraq, for the moment, anyway; and from the looks of things over there, it is going to be a lot more moments after this one, as well:

Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

"Iraqi politicians seek more time to develop new government"

Tue Mar 1, 6:19 PM ET

By Hannah Allam, Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A month after Iraq's landmark elections, negotiations to form a new government have stalled and could last several more weeks because of disputes over territory, the role of religion and minority representation.

The delay has brought an end to election fever, with Iraqis growing more frustrated that the mostly Shiite Muslim parliament they voted into power on Jan. 30 still hasn't confirmed a prime minister or sorted out key Cabinet posts - necessary steps before the new parliament can convene.

Other key areas remain far from settled.

There are no clear favorites in discussions over who'll hold the "big five" ministries: defense, interior, finance, oil and foreign affairs.

There also appears to have been little progress in determining who'll sit on the committee that will draft a permanent constitution for Iraq and, in doing so, determine whether the country becomes the secular democracy envisioned by the Bush administration, a conservative Islamic state or a battleground for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Negotiators are busily shuttling between Baghdad, the Kurdish capital of Irbil and the southern Shiite holy city of Najaf, but concessions have been few and disputes fierce, said Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians involved in the talks.

Shiite politicians blame the delay on their efforts to reach out to disenfranchised Sunni Muslims, satisfy the demands of the powerful Kurdish minority and quell the concerns of Kurds and some secular Shiites that the cleric-backed United Iraqi Alliance, which won more than 140 of the 275 seats at stake, will veer too close to theocracy.

The one decision that seems to have been reached is the appointment of Ibrahim al Jaafari, a Shiite Muslim scholar who heads the influential Dawa Party, a mainstay of the alliance, as prime minister, the most powerful post in the new government.

Considered a moderate Islamist, Jaafari has received the backing of top Shiite religious leaders and is tolerated by Sunni factions, though he's opposed by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who's trying to lure independent and secular Shiites away from the alliance in a bid to win the job for himself.

Most observers believe Allawi, whose secular slate won 40 seats, has little chance of success, however, and politicians privy to the negotiations expect him to drop the challenge this week.

"There's no point in Allawi campaigning now," said a senior official in the Iraqi interior ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The election's over."

"It's too late for a secular bloc."

The presidency, a largely ceremonial position, will most likely go to Jalal Talabani, a veteran Kurdish politician who heads the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

Sunni Arabs - who'd lobbied hard for the spot - are expected to receive a deputy premiership, at least one important Cabinet post and speaker of the Parliament as consolation prizes.

But negotiations over the presidency continue, with alliance leaders weighing their debt to the Kurds against the consequences of leaving Sunni Arabs out of the top two slots.

Iraq's current president is a Sunni, and Iraq's insurgency is largely Sunni-based.

"When the alliance decided to take the prime minister post, the Kurds moved in for the presidency," said Homam Hamoodi, a high-ranking official with the alliance and a member of the new parliament.

"But taking the presidency away from the Sunnis is sensitive."

"Terrorists could distort this to their advantage and it could inflame the sensitivities of neighboring countries."

"Sunnis represent the third part of the Iraqi equation, and we have to face them."

Debate also is fierce over Kurdish demands to expand their autonomy in the north, preserve their peshmerga militias and give them control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

The Kurds, with 75 seats in the new parliament, would be the easiest group for the alliance to team up with and establish a governing majority in parliament.

But the differences between the alliance and the more secular Kurds have been difficult to bridge.

As secular Sunnis, the Kurds share concerns over a constitution based solely or primarily on Islamic law.

They prefer to base the new document on the secular interim constitution drawn up under the U.S.-led occupation.

Shiite leaders, parroting U.S. military statements, have said there's no room in the new Iraq for private armies, a reference to the Kurdish peshmerga.

But the real sticking point is Kurdish demands that Kirkuk be added to the area considered part of the Kurdish zone.

The alliance's position has been to save the issue for a national referendum, saying it doesn't belong in governmental negotiations.

The Kurds have disagreed.

"All the Iraqi people and the Kurds know that Kirkuk falls within the Kurdistan region, just like Scotland has recognized borders but is still part of Britain," said Rasheed Latif, a prominent Kurdish politician who's the interim water resources minister.

"But this doesn't mean that nobody but Kurds can live in Kirkuk."

How to include Iraq's Sunni Arabs also is a stumbling block.

Sunni Arabs, who benefited most under the rule of Saddam Hussein, didn't vote, their clerics called for a boycott and their most influential party withdrew from the elections.

Still, they want a share in the new government, and Shiite and Kurdish leaders recognize the importance in accommodating them.

"If I belong to the alliance, I would worry very much about the victory I have," said Hachim al Hassani, the interim minister of industry and one of the few Sunni Arabs who won a seat in the new parliament.

"It's a very big responsibility."

"For them to win and succeed, they have to bring the Sunni Arabs into the political process, not in a small way, but in a big way."

Sunni demands include setting a withdrawal date for U.S.-led forces, which Shiite politicians have said they won't do, and curtailing "de-Baathification," the purging of Iraq's military and government institutions of people - mostly Sunnis - who held certain levels of membership in Saddam's political party.

Sunnis also are lobbying against continued U.S.-led anti-insurgent offensives in Sunni strongholds, for fear of high civilian casualties and destruction.

While the alliance paints itself as generous in reaching out to Sunnis, some prominent Sunnis said they still don't feel included in negotiations.

"They want us to go to them and beg them."

"That's humiliating," said Mishan al Jubouri, another Sunni Arab elected to the parliament.

"I dread the moment I'll speak in front of parliament for the first time."

"I'm worried I'll find myself a stranger among them."

One casualty of the delay in forming a government is early completion of the constitution, which was to have been done by August and voted on in December.

But the law setting that timetable also allows a six-month extension - and most observers now think the extension will be needed.

Contributing to this report were special correspondent Mohammed al Awsy and a Knight Ridder correspondent who isn't named for security reasons.

[Livyjr]

Over in Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, myself, jeffmoskin and Mr. A.B., and maybe others as well, were accused of running a propaganda machine for the Muslims, I guess, and I have to say that I find that a very interesting allegation to be made against us, especially in these days of terror here in OUR America as a result of this so-called "Patriot Act", which allows the "gummint" to simply swoop down and remove people in the middle of the night, and probably broad daylight too, based upon nothing at all, but a desire on their part to eliminate people, in order to remove and revoke dissent, here in OUR America.

And from what I understand, that "Patriot Act" is quite a tool for them to be able to crush real patriotism in OUR America with!

Then, of course, I was also accused of being "angry", and being a communist sympathizer, if not an outright commie, myself, and that is a real Republican attack, if there ever was one.

And they have that down to a science, actually; EXCEPT, in here, where the conversation is kind of "frozen", the "attack method" is really not quite as effective as when employed in "real time" by such ilk as Rush Limbaugh, and Scottie "BOY" McClellan, and Mehlman, of course, and that "Racey" Ott fellow that is or was some kind of big-wheel in the Republican hierarchy, and there is OUR advantage in here, that "slowing down" of the rate of exchange between participants in the conversation.

Before we have to say a word in reply, we can really study what was just said to us, or in this case, about us, and so, we can then marshall our resources, and give as full a response or reply as the situation warrants, and here, I mean acting intelligently, and not being mean or spiteful in return.

"Commies"!

"Them dirty commies"!

A charge that I have heard leveled against dissenters all my life, now, going back to the McCarthy "witch hunts", and blacklisting, etc.

It sure was a handy way to "get rid of" somebody, just label them a "commie", and start a file on them, and their lives would be ruined!

And it still goes on!

It went on just the other day in Mr. A.B.'s thread in "Religion and Politics" for example, and it was going on big time during the last election, where John Kerry and his supporters, including some of us, presumably, were being labeled as "leftists", or "left-leaning", which is short-hand for "COMMIE"!

And here is some more of it, from our recent past, back in the Viet Nam times, here in OUR America:

Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

"Thurmond encouraged FBI to build case against King, memo reveals"

Tue Mar 1, 9:16 PM ET

By Lauren Markoe and John Monk, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond and his staff tried to get the FBI to build a case against civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965 on the grounds that King was "controlled by communists," according to a recently released FBI memo on the late senator from South Carolina.

The memo shows Thurmond's attempt to marry two causes dear to him - fighting communism and defeating civil rights.

On Monday, the FBI released a portion of Thurmond's FBI file - nearly 600 pages of sometimes heavily edited memos, letters and other documents.

The file details a long, secret and mutually beneficial relationship between Thurmond and the FBI.

Another 1,700 pages remain to be released.

The documents were released in response to requests by The State newspaper in Columbia, S.C.

Thurmond wasn't the only conservative politician who tried to paint the civil rights movement's leaders as "red."

But the FBI memo plumbs the depths of Thurmond's aversion to desegregation.

And with other pages in the now-public file, it shows how much of Thurmond's politics was dedicated to fighting the "Red Menace."

Thurmond, an iconic figure in Southern political history and an ardent segregationist who later publicly embraced his black constituents, was willing to go to great lengths to vilify King in the 1960s.

The Sept. 15, 1965, memo, written by Cartha "Deke" DeLoach, a top deputy to then-FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, recounts a meeting in the senator's office that was supposed to include Thurmond; instead, Thurmond was represented by aides.

One Thurmond aide, according to the FBI memo, said the senator wanted King to be exposed as a communist.

DeLoach's memo recounts the aide "stated that it was widely understood that King was controlled by communists in this country."

The aide, whose name the FBI edited out of the memo, also reportedly asked DeLoach "if there was a concerted effort on the part of the FBI to discredit King."

DeLoach wrote that he responded that "such matters were beyond our jurisdiction."

It was later revealed that the FBI indeed had tried to discredit King by secretly wiretapping his telephone and leaking information to reporters and others.

At the meeting, the aide also showed DeLoach recent newspaper clippings in which Thurmond had criticized King for "injecting himself into matters of foreign policy at the United Nations."

Those same clippings, DeLoach wrote, criticized Arthur Goldberg, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for meeting with King.

Joe Darby, vice president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said Tuesday that those who opposed the civil rights movement tried to label its activists as communists.

"That was a very dirty word to get folks stirred up," he said.

Many blacks were intimidated into silence, he said, because they knew standing up for their rights could invite the charge.

Today, Darby said, it's hard for people to realize how inflammatory the "communist" label was, but "it made sense to the white South in the 1960s."

"It was not a matter of logic; it was a matter of gut reaction."

Dan Carter, a nationally known civil rights historian at the University of South Carolina, attested to the power of the communist smear upon the civil rights movement.

"As late as 1962 or 1963, a majority of Americans actually believed that communists were involved or were instigators of the civil rights movement," he said.

Moreover, he said, the segregationist White Citizens Councils - in their appeals to Northerners - stressed the supposed communist leanings of civil rights workers rather than segregation.

"The segregationists played the anti-communist card," Carter said.

"It was the one card they could deal to both Northerners and Southerners."

The FBI never conclusively found King was a communist, Carter said.

But it tried to link him to communists by saying he associated with them or had ties to organizations that included communists.

Nevertheless, said Thurmond biographer Jack Bass, Hoover "no doubt was a source of Strom Thurmond's belief that Martin Luther King Jr. was heavily influenced by communists."

The 1965 memo says DeLoach expressed to Thurmond's aide an unwillingness to take up the senator's suggestion.

Instead, DeLoach advised the staffer that it was "the prerogative of any of the senators" to "expose" King, but they should "do their homework well."

Asked for advice on how to proceed against King, DeLoach recalled himself warning that Thurmond, as a Southerner, "would no doubt be considered subject to bias and suspicion in any statements he might make."

The Thurmond aide, according to DeLoach, also said the senator would like to meet with DeLoach on the matter.

Records released by the FBI to date don't indicate whether that meeting ever took place.

The memo makes clear Thurmond's dislike of King.

But the senator's admirers of today ask that his actions be considered in the context of the times - but also in the context of Thurmond's changing record on race.

It's a complicated picture.

In his 1947 inaugural address as governor of South Carolina, Thurmond - widely considered a progressive - urged whites to improve black public schools, which were generally far inferior to white schools.

His tack soon changed.

In 1948, he ran for president on the segregationist States Rights Party ticket, promising to fight for separate schools, churches and swimming pools for blacks and whites.

But Thurmond, who set records as the longest-serving and oldest senator in history, charted a new course in the 1970s.

In 1971, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black aide.

And in 1983, he voted to make Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

South Carolina state Sen. John Courson, R-Richland, a longtime Thurmond friend and supporter, said Thurmond's criticism of King must be understood in context.

The senator and many other Americans were genuinely concerned about the spread of communism, Courson said.

In the 1940s and 1950s, eastern Europe and China both turned communist.

The "iron curtain" went up, restricting movement in Europe.

Communist North Korea invaded South Korea.

In the United States, the spy trial of State Department official Alger Hiss, the selling of secret hydrogen bomb plans to the Soviet Union and the hearings of U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy into communism in the State Department provoked widespread fear.

"One didn't know whether one's next-door neighbor was a Marxist or not," Courson said.

[Livyjr]

And while we are on this topic, of the very thin, if even that, line of division between religion and politics in this country, we have as follows:

Supreme Court - AP

"High Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases'

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in two cases involving displays in Texas and Kentucky.

At issue is whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion," or simply represent a secular tribute to America's legal heritage.

While the cases strictly involve Ten Commandments displays, a broad ruling could define the proper place of religion in public life — from use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A decision is expected by late June.

The Bush administration, which sided with a California school district last year to keep "God" in the Pledge, is now joining Texas and Kentucky officials to back the Ten Commandments displays.

"Countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court's own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue."

"Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased," writes Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his court filing.

Erwin Chemerinsky, representing a homeless man suing to have the Texas display removed, countered:

"The government's symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself."

"In large letters, the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"

Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.

In the Texas case, Thomas Van Orden lost his lawsuit to have a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds.

Justices have outlined several different tests in recent years to determine their constitutionality:

_secular purpose; was there religious motive?

_endorsement; do they show a government neutrality toward religion?

_coercion; do they place impermissible pressure, such as school prayer?

_historical practice; are they part of the "fabric of our society," such as legislative prayer?

And here is an update on what is to me quite a strange case to end up before the United States Supreme Court, RIGHT NOW, especially as it involves an alleged homeless man from Texas, George W. Bush's "HOMELAND", who was complaining about a statue on public land:

Supreme Court - AP

"Commandments Debate Prompts Demonstrations"

2 hours, 14 minutes ago

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Shouts of "Amen" and a response of "hypocrites" pierced the chill air Wednesday as demonstrators protested in front of the Supreme Court while inside justices considered cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments on government property.

At times, the demonstration of those backing the displays took on the fervor of a prayer meeting, as the group of fewer than 100 sang "Amazing Grace" and recited prayers at the courthouse steps.

Just a few feet away, those on the other side defied the teeth-chattering cold to hold up signs that read "Honor Founding Fathers", "Keep Church and Religion Separate" or "No Religious Test For Patriotism."

The group quoted Bible verses they said suggested that the public praying by the other demonstrators was hypocritical.

"I don't want to deny anyone their religious rights, but they already have ample opportunity to express their religious faith, without denying us our right not to," said Tony Hileman, whose group numbered about 30.

The cases before the court centered on whether a 6-foot-tall monument of the Ten Commandments in Texas should be allowed to remain on Capitol grounds and a copy of the Commandments can stay posted in a courthouse in Kentucky.

Monuments carrying the Ten Commandments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country.

Lawyers challenging these displays argue that they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

Christan Stapleton, 13, of Newland, N.C. carried a homemade, cardboard Ten Commandments tablet.

She came to the Supreme Court with her church and family members.

"We do need them in our school," she said, "to help us know what to do, what God wants us to do as we go through our day."

[Livyjr]

And here, once again, I find myself returning from a thread of Mr. A.B.'s; this time, his thread over in "Religion and Politics", where the topic has to do with religion entering into, or staying out of, OUR American politics!

And that, of course, brings us back to this concept of "liberty", here in OUR America.

What is "LIBERTY" and why should it matter, especially in these times, when we are told that America is being "threatened" by all these alleged "outside" threats that always seem to involve Muslims and Islam in some other foreign country thousands of miles away from here, as was the case with Viet Nam in the last go-round, except then, of course, it was "Godless Communism", while this time it is alleged "Godless Islam" that we as a nation seem to have an obligation to be cowering down from, at the same time that we are making ourselves very hateful, so as to be able to "smite" this godless religion, I guess, or more accurately, give over all of our money and possessions to George W. Bush and his, so that they can do that smiting for us.

Now, during the Viet Nam times, the term "godless communism" was much more of a "political concept" than it was a religious one, and as one who "caught the bug" and did go to Viet Nam, I can say for myself, that religion did not enter into that matter at all.

In fact, I thought that we were going over there to fight a bunch of dangerous thugs, and that has to do with "justice" and not religion.

But this is now different, these times that we are now in, because it is religious this time, and not political at all, unless you want to say that the politics are those of an alleged world superpower versus those of a tribal society in a different part of the world that has religion, Islam, as an intrinsic part of its structure!

This, to me, is overt, and in Mr. A.B.'s thread, where I am a guest, I made a point of stating that, and how I find this present "religious" climate in OUR America to be repressive and offensive, and repugnant to OUR liberties as citizens of this Republic of OURS, which it still was the last time I checked this morning.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: 

a) Freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States constitution, from constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, religious beliefs, and the practice of religion. 

b) Freedom to entertain and express any or no system of religious opinions, and to engage in or refrain from any form of religious observance or public or private religious worship, not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and the general welfare!

- Black's Law Dictionary

SO!

There it is in a nutshell!

Or is it, really?

What we had, say the "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS" at the time of the American Revolution, is all that we get the day after, and this has direct implications with regard to this matter of religion in OUR American politics, AS AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, we had state-sponsored and supported churches, and if you were not a member of a state-sponsored church, you were a second-class citizen without rights, here in OUR America.

For example, up into the 1800's, if you were a Catholic, in certain states, as a matter of law, you could not hold public office.

Public office in those places, AS A MATTER OF LAW, was limited to members of the state-sponsored church.

NOW ....

The Bush Co's are saying that SINCE this was so, IT STILL IS, and those who would "USE" the First Amendment to counter this; THOSE PEOPLE are "un-American"!

Those who would use the First Amendment to challenge state-sponsored religion here in OUR America are "trouble-makers" who should be dealt with harshly!

That is "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM" in practice!

Thus, "GOD" put George W. Bush on the throne of OUR America, for "God's" purposes, of course, which we, as lay-persons cannot even begin to fathom, and since "God's" purposes are "good purposes", and only America has a leader actually installed by "God", then we, as "GOOD AMERICANS", must cleave to the religious standard of Mr. George W. Bush, to ACTUALLY be both "godly", and "good Americans"!

If we do not, of course, then we are enemies of "AMERICA", as defined by George W. Bush, SINCE GOD PUT HIM IN POWER, here in OUR America in order for him to be able to make such distinctions, FOR "GOD's" PURPOSES, of course, which purposes we as lay-persons just can never know a thing about, without a "PRIEST CLASS" with George W. Bush as its head, to interpret for us, the masses who apparently just have "religion" as OUR "opiate", here in the "post-9/11 environment" that was brought on, here in OUR America, directly by George W. Bush and his, for their benefit, which is certainly not my benefit, and not by a long shot, indeed!

SO!

Where are we, then, as a nation?

Are we poised on the brink of something, perhaps, or has the "post-9/11" environment" created in OUR America by George W. Bush and his, for their own reasons, actually pushed us over a precipice?

Is the "AMERICA" that we knew and loved as children growing up in this great nation of OURS now really gone from us, forever?

The question of the moment, here in OUR America!

Stay tuned for further developments, and if you see a guy about fifty-nine years old with greyish hair and a mustache nailed to a tree somewhere, and this thread is vacant for more than a day, take a closer look as you go by, for it just might be me!

And as always, I continue to regret that I have but one life to give for my country!

And once again, I must confess that I have been over in Mr. A.B.'s thread in "Religion and Politics", and boy, is the "action" ever hot over there, right now.

I personally find "religion" to be a fascinating subject, actually, and so, I am enjoying myself over there, which is not a bad way to spend the time in here.

And with that said, since this thread is "Life in OUR America", and we are on the subject of "religion" in here, with these Ten Commandment cases before the United States Supreme Court, I would like to re-post in here a post I made over there on the "history" of religion, here in OUR America, when it was still a colony, in the days right before rebellion against the tyranny of "Fat George", the despotic English King, at the time, and the Revolution which was the birth of OUR America as an independent nation of this earth:

"The Great Awakening"

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html

The Great Awakening was a watershed event in the life of the American people.

Before it was over, it had swept the colonies of the Eastern seaboard, transforming the social and religious life of land.

Although the name is slightly misleading--the Great Awakening was not one continuous revival, rather it was several revivals in a variety of locations--it says a great deal about the state of religion in the colonies.

For the simple reality is that one cannot be awakened unless you have fallen asleep.

Neither the Anglicans who came to dominate religious life in Virginia after royal control was established over Jamestown, nor the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay, were terribly successful in putting down roots.

The reality was that on the frontier, the settled parish system of England-- which was employed by Puritan and Anglican alike--proved difficult to transplant.

Unlike the compact communities of the old world, the small farms and plantations of the new spread out into the wilderness, making both communication and ecclesiastical discipline difficult.

Because people often lived great distances from a parish church, membership and participation suffered.

In addition, on the frontier concern for theological issues faded before the concern for survival and wrestling a living from a hard and difficult land.

Because the individual was largely on his own, and depended on himself for survival, authoritarian structures of any sort--be they governmental or ecclesiastical--met with great resistance.

As a result, by the second and third generations, the vast majority of the population was outside the membership of the church.

Up and down the Eastern Seaboard, the landscape was littered with the dry tinder of the unchurched.

All that was required was a spark of revival to set the landscape afire with religious enthusiasm.

And when that spark ignited, those who led the revival were so surprised by what was taking place, that they "attributed it entirely to God's inscrutable grace."

The First Signs of Awakening

The sparks of revival were struck in New England.

Solomon Stoddard's sermons in Northampton, Massachusetts had led to revivals breaking out as early as 1679.

And after that, periodic revivals would occur and then die out.

One of the reasons they would be extinguished was the smothering influence of the Enlightenment.

With the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica in the 17th century, traditional religious formulations had been under pressure.

That is because implicit in the work of Newton and others was the assumption that human beings had the ability to discover the secrets of the universe and thereby exert some control over their own destiny.

If human beings could in fact think the thoughts of God--if they could discover and read the blueprints whereby God had made and ordered the world--the result was a lessening of the gulf between God and man.

This tended to undercut traditional Calvinism which held that the gap between the Deity and his creatures was quite large.

This affirmation of human ability and reason had an extremely corrosive effect on the reigning orthodoxy which held that one's destiny was solely in God's hands.

The result was a growing emphasis on man and his morality, with religion becoming more rational and less emotional.

One of those who attacked this growing rationality, and who was also one of the principle figures in the Great Awakening was Jonathan Edwards.

Edwards has received a bad press for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

In that sermon he used the image of a spider dangling by a web over a hot fire to describe the human predicament.

His point was that at any moment, our hold on life could break and we'd be plunged into fires of eternal damnation.

But if you read his sermons, you will find that he spoke quietly, reasonably, and logically.

Indeed, he was dry and even a bit boring.

But he began to experience a harvest of conversions that were accompanied by exaggerated behavior.

People would bark, shout, and run when they were converted.

Why did people listen to Edwards?

Why did his preaching provoke such a response?

For one thing, he was speaking about a matter they were vitally interested in.

If I were to tell you I heard on the radio on the way over that someone had found a cure for cancer, you would want to know the details.

And so it was for the Puritans who were growing deeply concerned by what they perceived to be a striking decline in piety.

The youth of the second and third generation were given to mirth and frivolity and would spend the greater part of night in co-ed parties.

They would go riding in wagons under layers of quilts and blankets.

Edwards and others were deeply concerned about these excursions and the impact they might have on the state of their morals.

And there is reason to believe that Edwards had cause to be concerned about these activities.

Evidently something was taking place under these quilts because there was a striking rise in the number of children conceived out of wedlock which confirmed in the Puritan's mind that a general decline in piety was occurring.

The new generation had inherited the Puritan theocracy, but had begun to forget it, and the older generation was gravely concerned about this development.

They had come to this country to found a biblical commonwealth, but their vision did not seem to be shared by community's youth.

Yet another problem weighing on Puritan consciences for a long time was that of election.

As they studied this issue, the question was raised as to why should anyone preach?

Certainly not to elicit a decision for Christ.

Such decisions had been made before the foundation of the world according to Calvinist orthodoxy.

If preaching were simply for the edification of the Saints, then it was like preaching to the choir, in that you were preaching to the already converted.

The result was a decline in worship attendance.

And then quite by surprise there was a tremendous outpouring of response to the preaching of Edwards.

This movement of the Spirit surprised people because it produced something unexpected: people professing conversion.

What Edwards said in these sermons was pure Calvinism.

"You can't control salvation."

But Puritans heard him say, "if you try, God will aid your salvation."

Here's one example.

Jonathan Edwards talked about "Pressing into the Kingdom".

"It was," he said, "not a thing impossible."

By that, Edwards was referred to God's power to save whomever he pleases.

But what the Puritans heard was there was a chance they could achieve election.

Phrases like "It is in your power to use means of grace" and "One can strive against corruption" were similarly misunderstood.

Edwards wanted to make the point that salvation ultimately is in the hands of God, and that he empowers the elect to resist evil.

But people heard something else.

And they responded to what they viewed as an invitation to seek after salvation.

Despite the response to his preaching, Edwards did not remain popular forever.

His downfall occurred when a group of young people got hold of an obstetrics book, and looked at the illustrations of the female anatomy.

It was, I guess, the eighteenth century equivalent of looking at a Playboy.

In any event, Edwards responded to this incident by preaching against it, and condemning those involved from the pulpit.

As a result, he alienated the parents who drove him from his position.

Exiled to Stockbridge to work with the Indians, he died there.

George Whitefield

Another principle figure in the Awakening was George Whitefield.

Known as the "Great Itinerant," Whitefield was an associate of John Wesley in England.

He had a loud voice, and it is said one conversion occurred 3 miles from where he was preaching.

He was a dramatic man who it was said could pronounce the word "Mesopotamia" in such a way that it could melt an audience.

He would always say it at least once in sermon, no matter the topic.

One of those who heard him was Ben Franklin.

Even though he was a worldly man, he had his pockets picked by Whitefield.

See: Franklin, Autobiography, p. 118

Whitefield traveled up and down the eastern seaboard carrying the Awakening with him, and he offered a new quality to the prevailing view of how one gains citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

The key test of one's election, Whitefield asserted, was whether one had had an emotional experience of conversion.

This, of course, represented a reaction to the Enlightenment.

Like many of the evangelists, Whitefield stood over against a cold, rational religion that appealed only to the mind.

His emphasis on the conversion experience had a leveling effect.

It served to remind everyone that the ground is level at the foot of the cross.

And it made the experience of saving grace seem of greater relevance than the petty quarrels over ecclesiastical structure that seemed to divide Christians.

An example of this functional ecumenism can be found in a sermon Whitefield preached in Philadelphia, where he looked to heaven and asked:

"Father Abraham, whom have you in heaven?"

"Any Episcopalians?"

"No!"

"Any Presbyterians?"

"No!"

"Any Independents or Methodists?"

"No, No No!"

"Whom have you there?"

"We don't know those names here."

"All who are here are Christians..."

"Oh, is this the case?"

"Then God help us to forget your party names and to become Christians in deed and truth."

In essence, Whitefield reduced to Christianity to it's lowest common denominator--those sinners who love Jesus will go to heaven.

Denominational distinctives were down played.

This theme was picked up by Samuel Davies, one of the principle leaders of the Awakening in Virginia.

"My brethren, I would now warn you against this wretched, mischievous spirit of party..."

"A Christian! a Christian!"

"Let that by your highest distinction...".

Whitefield preached in terms of everyday experience.

We have one volume of his sermons in short hand.

(Most other sermons were edited when written down and his illustrations left out)

One sermon told about a woman who was dying, and raised up on her death bed, and instead of asking about Christ, asked "What is trumps."

This led him to launch off onto the subject of cards.

Reaction to the Awakening

Whitefield also attacked established ministers for leading their flocks into Hell by not demanding an experience salvation of people, a theme others would pick up on such as Gilbert Tennant who preached on the dangers of an unconverted ministry.

This led the established clergy to attack Whitefield and the unchecked enthusiasm of the revivals in general, and the Great Awakening in particular.

Leader of this counterattack was Charles Chauncy who led the attack from the pulpit of First Church, Boston.

His sermon, Enthusiasm Described and Cautioned Against, sparked the opposition to action.

Anyone, Chauncy claimed, can have one good sermon.

Established preachers could not compete with these itinerant evangelists, and their preaching threatened to undermine loyalty of parishioners.

And they tended to view these evangelists as ignorant and filled with zeal.

Indeed, some carried the revival to extremes.

James Davenport--was one of the enthusiasts who fit the stereotype.

He burned books, and claimed to be able to distinguish the elect from the damned.

He greeted the former as "brethren" and the latter as "neighbors."

He was obviously mentally unbalanced, and leaders of the Awakening tried to keep their distance from him.

The rising opposition to the Awakening had a major impact on the direction of American Christianity.

The old Puritan synthesis of head and heart--of a religion that appealed to both mind and spirit--broke apart.

The "Old Lights"--as followers of Chauncy came to be called--unencumbered by the emotionalism of the revivalists moved in the direction of a greater rationalism in theology, and would latter give rise to Unitarianism.

While the evangelists--cut adrift from their intellectual heritage--were often given to excess.

The Phases of the Awakening

In the North, where the Awakening began, revival tended to be an urban phenomenon where flamboyant and highly emotional preaching appeared in Puritan churches.

The compromises of the Half-way covenant were swept aside, and the notion of the church as a body of saints, was reclaimed.

Standards of membership were increased, and yet, membership still grew.

In the South, the Great Awakening was more of a frontier phenomenon than was the case in the Middle Colonies or New England.

In areas that were nominally Anglican (the tidewater) it had little impact.

In part this was because the residents of the tidewater had just enough religion to inoculate them from catching the real thing, and also because authorities were better able to enforce the established church, and protect it from the itinerant evangelists.

But in the piedmont and mountains of Virginia and North Carolina the revival had a wide open field.

These areas were populated by less prosperous settlers from the tidewater moving beyond the fall line, and by Scotch-Irish and Germans coming down the Shenandoah Valley.

The result was a population that had few ties to the Anglican establishment.

One of the principle leaders of the Awakening in the South was Samuel Davies who came to Hanover, Virginia in 1748.

The revival in Hanover began when a Samuel Morris began to read sermons of Whitefield and Luther to his neighbors.

The result was striking.

Conversions were numerous, and special "reading houses were built" because the crowds would not fit in private homes.

When Davies arrived the Awakening surged.

He was the great organizer and propagator of the Revival.

A Presbyterian, he fought for the legal toleration of dissenters.

Although his preaching was of the moderate variety, he ignited the fires of revival, and under his leadership Presbyterianism rapidly took root.

In fact, the Hanover Presbytery was the first to be organized on a continuing basis in the South.

Another leader in the Awakening was Shubal Stearns who brought the Separate Baptist movement to the region.

Methodists gained a foothold in the South largely through the preaching of an Anglican clergyman with Methodist sympathies: Devereux Jarratt.

Both Baptists and Methodists had an advantage over the Presbyterians and soon surpassed them in numbers.

Where Presbyterians insisted on an educated ministry and ordered worship, Methodists and Baptists were better able to address the needs of frontier communities with lay preachers who could go where there was need, and who could be quickly deployed without waiting for them to complete their education.

Methodists and Baptists were also more open to the emotional and unrestrained nature of worship in the revivals, while Presbyterians were uncomfortable with what they viewed to be the excesses of the revivals.

Some Results of the Great Awakening

(1) One of the major results of the Great Awakening was to unify 4/5ths of Americans in a common understanding of the Christian faith and life.

Americans--North and South--shared a common evangelical view of life.

(2) Dissent and dissenters enjoyed greater respect than ever before.

Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians--all non-established groups--took root and grew.

Despite the fact that these denominational lines remained, they shared a common evangelical voice.

Typical was the sentiment of John Wesley:

"Dost thou love and fear God?"

"It is enough!"

"I give thee the right had of fellowship."

This catholicity of spirit became common.

(3) Great emphasis came to be placed on education.

George Whitefield founded the school that would latter become the University of Pennsylvania, and UNC was originally a Presbyterian effort.

Indeed, the first generation of faculty members there were all Presbyterian ministers.

The focus on education was rooted in a concern for souls, but it also reflected the fact that if the ground is level at the foot of the cross, education should be available for all as well.

(4) A greater sense of responsibility for Indians and Slaves emerged from the revival.

George Whitefield, for instance, was among the first to preach to Blacks.

The evangelical experience was common to both whites and blacks, making both aware that the ground level at foot of cross.

This led most evangelicals to denounce slavery as sinful, and at the first General Conference of Methodism, slave holding was viewed as grounds for immediate expulsion from the society.

(5) The Awakening reinterpreted the meaning of the covenant between God and his creature.

In Puritan theology the focus was on what God has done for us.

In the aftermath of the Awakening, the new emphasis was on what man can do in response to God's great gift.

The responsibility for salvation is not God's but man's.

(5) A complete dissolving of the theocracy occurred.

The establishment in Virginia and North Carolina began to fall apart.

Ministers could no longer control the direction of religious life.

It had been democratized and made accessible by people.

(6) There was a break down in theological consensus.

The New Lights (the revivalists) versus the Old Lights (traditional orthodox).

Those who wanted to adapt the faith to changing times and circumstances versus those who wanted to hang on the old order.

(7) The Awakening responded--like the English Puritans of the 16 and 17th centuries--to needs of the people for reassurance and direction, to give them release from anxiety.

(8) It served to revived a sense of religious mission.

Everyone believed there was some greater purpose behind the revivals, that God's Kingdom must be near.

[jeffmoskin]

And well done, jeffmoskin, well done, indeed!

Interesting analysis indeed!

You know, jeffmoskin, while you and I are sometimes, or perhaps often, "tongue-in-cheek", this "business" of "politics" is really quite important, to us all, especially when charges of corruption are involved, and I am always surprised at how little people really know about right where they live!

Now, of course, a question that would arise is "SO WHAT", and to be truthful, I have no answer for that, and don't pretend to.

All I know is what I know, and my beliefs on getting through life are my own, and maybe they won't work for anyone but me!

In the meantime, while I am down here on earth, I personally like to have some idea as to what was happeneing on the day that I was born, so to speak, so that I can then pick my own steps carefully, so as to not get run down by the mob, or the crowd, or whatever, and jeffmoskin, THAT DOES HAPPEN, and has, especially in the early days of this nation's history, and well, all through right up to this time, and it is all of that stuff, the good, and the questionable, which makes us who we are, in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the rest of the world as well.

SO?

What about the "corruption" side, then, is it a non-issue in Los Angeles?

CORRUPTION!

What am I to say to resident of the Empire State about corruption?

We are minor leaguers. I would have said Bush leaguers, but I hate using that word.
Boss Tweed set the bar pretty high about a century and a half ago. We have nothing to rival Tammany Hall. Just an occasional kickback or sweetheart deal on city contracts.

But hey, what about Halliburton and KB and R?

Hahn has his *ss in a sling because of what I would call "petty chiseling". But Martha Stewart went down for far less, and Kenny Boy Lay is free on far more.

Go figure.

Is Hahn corrupt? Probably.

Is this news? Probably not.

Does anybody care? About the corruption, probably not, but Hahn has failed to deliver in the 4 years he's been mayor. So this may be the straw, so to speak.

Tune in for late breaking news.

LIVE, from the West Coast,

part of OUR soggy America.

[jeffmoskin]

And once again, I must confess that I have been over in Mr. A.B.'s thread in "Religion and Politics", and boy, is the "action" ever hot over there, right now.

I personally find "religion" to be a fascinating subject, actually, and so, I am enjoying myself over there, which is not a bad way to spend the time in here.

And with that said, since this thread is "Life in OUR America", and we are on the subject of "religion" in here, with these Ten Commandment cases before the United States Supreme Court, I would like to re-post in here a post I made over there on the "history" of religion, here in OUR America, when it was still a colony, in the days right before rebellion against the tyranny of "Fat George", the despotic English King, at the time, and the Revolution which was the birth of OUR America as an independent nation of this earth:

"The Great Awakening"

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html

The Great Awakening was a watershed event in the life of the American people.

Before it was over, it had swept the colonies of the Eastern seaboard, transforming the social and religious life of land.

Although the name is slightly misleading--the Great Awakening was not one continuous revival, rather it was several revivals in a variety of locations--it says a great deal about the state of religion in the colonies.

For the simple reality is that one cannot be awakened unless you have fallen asleep.

Neither the Anglicans who came to dominate religious life in Virginia after royal control was established over Jamestown, nor the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay, were terribly successful in putting down roots.

The reality was that on the frontier, the settled parish system of England-- which was employed by Puritan and Anglican alike--proved difficult to transplant.

Unlike the compact communities of the old world, the small farms and plantations of the new spread out into the wilderness, making both communication and ecclesiastical discipline difficult.

Because people often lived great distances from a parish church, membership and participation suffered.

In addition, on the frontier concern for theological issues faded before the concern for survival and wrestling a living from a hard and difficult land.

Because the individual was largely on his own, and depended on himself for survival, authoritarian structures of any sort--be they governmental or ecclesiastical--met with great resistance.

As a result, by the second and third generations, the vast majority of the population was outside the membership of the church.

Up and down the Eastern Seaboard, the landscape was littered with the dry tinder of the unchurched.

All that was required was a spark of revival to set the landscape afire with religious enthusiasm.

And when that spark ignited, those who led the revival were so surprised by what was taking place, that they "attributed it entirely to God's inscrutable grace."

The First Signs of Awakening

The sparks of revival were struck in New England.

Solomon Stoddard's sermons in Northampton, Massachusetts had led to revivals breaking out as early as 1679.

And after that, periodic revivals would occur and then die out.

One of the reasons they would be extinguished was the smothering influence of the Enlightenment.

With the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica in the 17th century, traditional religious formulations had been under pressure.

That is because implicit in the work of Newton and others was the assumption that human beings had the ability to discover the secrets of the universe and thereby exert some control over their own destiny.

If human beings could in fact think the thoughts of God--if they could discover and read the blueprints whereby God had made and ordered the world--the result was a lessening of the gulf between God and man.

This tended to undercut traditional Calvinism which held that the gap between the Deity and his creatures was quite large.

This affirmation of human ability and reason had an extremely corrosive effect on the reigning orthodoxy which held that one's destiny was solely in God's hands.

The result was a growing emphasis on man and his morality, with religion becoming more rational and less emotional.

One of those who attacked this growing rationality, and who was also one of the principle figures in the Great Awakening was Jonathan Edwards.

Edwards has received a bad press for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

In that sermon he used the image of a spider dangling by a web over a hot fire to describe the human predicament.

His point was that at any moment, our hold on life could break and we'd be plunged into fires of eternal damnation.

But if you read his sermons, you will find that he spoke quietly, reasonably, and logically.

Indeed, he was dry and even a bit boring.

But he began to experience a harvest of conversions that were accompanied by exaggerated behavior.

People would bark, shout, and run when they were converted.

Why did people listen to Edwards?

Why did his preaching provoke such a response?

For one thing, he was speaking about a matter they were vitally interested in.

If I were to tell you I heard on the radio on the way over that someone had found a cure for cancer, you would want to know the details.

And so it was for the Puritans who were growing deeply concerned by what they perceived to be a striking decline in piety.

The youth of the second and third generation were given to mirth and frivolity and would spend the greater part of night in co-ed parties.

They would go riding in wagons under layers of quilts and blankets.

Edwards and others were deeply concerned about these excursions and the impact they might have on the state of their morals.

And there is reason to believe that Edwards had cause to be concerned about these activities.

Evidently something was taking place under these quilts because there was a striking rise in the number of children conceived out of wedlock which confirmed in the Puritan's mind that a general decline in piety was occurring.

The new generation had inherited the Puritan theocracy, but had begun to forget it, and the older generation was gravely concerned about this development.

They had come to this country to found a biblical commonwealth, but their vision did not seem to be shared by community's youth.

Yet another problem weighing on Puritan consciences for a long time was that of election.

As they studied this issue, the question was raised as to why should anyone preach?

Certainly not to elicit a decision for Christ.

Such decisions had been made before the foundation of the world according to Calvinist orthodoxy.

If preaching were simply for the edification of the Saints, then it was like preaching to the choir, in that you were preaching to the already converted.

The result was a decline in worship attendance.

And then quite by surprise there was a tremendous outpouring of response to the preaching of Edwards.

This movement of the Spirit surprised people because it produced something unexpected: people professing conversion.

What Edwards said in these sermons was pure Calvinism.

"You can't control salvation."

But Puritans heard him say, "if you try, God will aid your salvation."

Here's one example.

Jonathan Edwards talked about "Pressing into the Kingdom".

"It was," he said, "not a thing impossible."

By that, Edwards was referred to God's power to save whomever he pleases.

But what the Puritans heard was there was a chance they could achieve election.

Phrases like "It is in your power to use means of grace" and "One can strive against corruption" were similarly misunderstood.

Edwards wanted to make the point that salvation ultimately is in the hands of God, and that he empowers the elect to resist evil.

But people heard something else.

And they responded to what they viewed as an invitation to seek after salvation.

Despite the response to his preaching, Edwards did not remain popular forever.

His downfall occurred when a group of young people got hold of an obstetrics book, and looked at the illustrations of the female anatomy.

It was, I guess, the eighteenth century equivalent of looking at a Playboy.

In any event, Edwards responded to this incident by preaching against it, and condemning those involved from the pulpit.

As a result, he alienated the parents who drove him from his position.

Exiled to Stockbridge to work with the Indians, he died there.

George Whitefield

Another principle figure in the Awakening was George Whitefield.

Known as the "Great Itinerant," Whitefield was an associate of John Wesley in England.

He had a loud voice, and it is said one conversion occurred 3 miles from where he was preaching.

He was a dramatic man who it was said could pronounce the word "Mesopotamia" in such a way that it could melt an audience.

He would always say it at least once in sermon, no matter the topic.

One of those who heard him was Ben Franklin.

Even though he was a worldly man, he had his pockets picked by Whitefield.

See: Franklin, Autobiography, p. 118

Whitefield traveled up and down the eastern seaboard carrying the Awakening with him, and he offered a new quality to the prevailing view of how one gains citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

The key test of one's election, Whitefield asserted, was whether one had had an emotional experience of conversion.

This, of course, represented a reaction to the Enlightenment.

Like many of the evangelists, Whitefield stood over against a cold, rational religion that appealed only to the mind.

His emphasis on the conversion experience had a leveling effect.

It served to remind everyone that the ground is level at the foot of the cross.

And it made the experience of saving grace seem of greater relevance than the petty quarrels over ecclesiastical structure that seemed to divide Christians.

An example of this functional ecumenism can be found in a sermon Whitefield preached in Philadelphia, where he looked to heaven and asked:

"Father Abraham, whom have you in heaven?"

"Any Episcopalians?"

"No!"

"Any Presbyterians?"

"No!"

"Any Independents or Methodists?"

"No, No No!"

"Whom have you there?"

"We don't know those names here."

"All who are here are Christians..."

"Oh, is this the case?"

"Then God help us to forget your party names and to become Christians in deed and truth."

In essence, Whitefield reduced to Christianity to it's lowest common denominator--those sinners who love Jesus will go to heaven.

Denominational distinctives were down played.

This theme was picked up by Samuel Davies, one of the principle leaders of the Awakening in Virginia.

"My brethren, I would now warn you against this wretched, mischievous spirit of party..."

"A Christian! a Christian!"

"Let that by your highest distinction...".

Whitefield preached in terms of everyday experience.

We have one volume of his sermons in short hand.

(Most other sermons were edited when written down and his illustrations left out)

One sermon told about a woman who was dying, and raised up on her death bed, and instead of asking about Christ, asked "What is trumps."

This led him to launch off onto the subject of cards.

Reaction to the Awakening

Whitefield also attacked established ministers for leading their flocks into Hell by not demanding an experience salvation of people, a theme others would pick up on such as Gilbert Tennant who preached on the dangers of an unconverted ministry.

This led the established clergy to attack Whitefield and the unchecked enthusiasm of the revivals in general, and the Great Awakening in particular.

Leader of this counterattack was Charles Chauncy who led the attack from the pulpit of First Church, Boston.

His sermon, Enthusiasm Described and Cautioned Against, sparked the opposition to action.

Anyone, Chauncy claimed, can have one good sermon.

Established preachers could not compete with these itinerant evangelists, and their preaching threatened to undermine loyalty of parishioners.

And they tended to view these evangelists as ignorant and filled with zeal.

Indeed, some carried the revival to extremes.

James Davenport--was one of the enthusiasts who fit the stereotype.

He burned books, and claimed to be able to distinguish the elect from the damned.

He greeted the former as "brethren" and the latter as "neighbors."

He was obviously mentally unbalanced, and leaders of the Awakening tried to keep their distance from him.

The rising opposition to the Awakening had a major impact on the direction of American Christianity.

The old Puritan synthesis of head and heart--of a religion that appealed to both mind and spirit--broke apart.

The "Old Lights"--as followers of Chauncy came to be called--unencumbered by the emotionalism of the revivalists moved in the direction of a greater rationalism in theology, and would latter give rise to Unitarianism.

While the evangelists--cut adrift from their intellectual heritage--were often given to excess.

The Phases of the Awakening

In the North, where the Awakening began, revival tended to be an urban phenomenon where flamboyant and highly emotional preaching appeared in Puritan churches.

The compromises of the Half-way covenant were swept aside, and the notion of the church as a body of saints, was reclaimed.

Standards of membership were increased, and yet, membership still grew.

In the South, the Great Awakening was more of a frontier phenomenon than was the case in the Middle Colonies or New England.

In areas that were nominally Anglican (the tidewater) it had little impact.

In part this was because the residents of the tidewater had just enough religion to inoculate them from catching the real thing, and also because authorities were better able to enforce the established church, and protect it from the itinerant evangelists.

But in the piedmont and mountains of Virginia and North Carolina the revival had a wide open field.

These areas were populated by less prosperous settlers from the tidewater moving beyond the fall line, and by Scotch-Irish and Germans coming down the Shenandoah Valley.

The result was a population that had few ties to the Anglican establishment.

One of the principle leaders of the Awakening in the South was Samuel Davies who came to Hanover, Virginia in 1748.

The revival in Hanover began when a Samuel Morris began to read sermons of Whitefield and Luther to his neighbors.

The result was striking.

Conversions were numerous, and special "reading houses were built" because the crowds would not fit in private homes.

When Davies arrived the Awakening surged.

He was the great organizer and propagator of the Revival.

A Presbyterian, he fought for the legal toleration of dissenters.

Although his preaching was of the moderate variety, he ignited the fires of revival, and under his leadership Presbyterianism rapidly took root.

In fact, the Hanover Presbytery was the first to be organized on a continuing basis in the South.

Another leader in the Awakening was Shubal Stearns who brought the Separate Baptist movement to the region.

Methodists gained a foothold in the South largely through the preaching of an Anglican clergyman with Methodist sympathies: Devereux Jarratt.

Both Baptists and Methodists had an advantage over the Presbyterians and soon surpassed them in numbers.

Where Presbyterians insisted on an educated ministry and ordered worship, Methodists and Baptists were better able to address the needs of frontier communities with lay preachers who could go where there was need, and who could be quickly deployed without waiting for them to complete their education.

Methodists and Baptists were also more open to the emotional and unrestrained nature of worship in the revivals, while Presbyterians were uncomfortable with what they viewed to be the excesses of the revivals.

Some Results of the Great Awakening

(1) One of the major results of the Great Awakening was to unify 4/5ths of Americans in a common understanding of the Christian faith and life.

Americans--North and South--shared a common evangelical view of life.

(2) Dissent and dissenters enjoyed greater respect than ever before.

Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians--all non-established groups--took root and grew.

Despite the fact that these denominational lines remained, they shared a common evangelical voice.

Typical was the sentiment of John Wesley:

"Dost thou love and fear God?"

"It is enough!"

"I give thee the right had of fellowship."

This catholicity of spirit became common.

(3) Great emphasis came to be placed on education.

George Whitefield founded the school that would latter become the University of Pennsylvania, and UNC was originally a Presbyterian effort.

Indeed, the first generation of faculty members there were all Presbyterian ministers.

The focus on education was rooted in a concern for souls, but it also reflected the fact that if the ground is level at the foot of the cross, education should be available for all as well.

(4) A greater sense of responsibility for Indians and Slaves emerged from the revival.

George Whitefield, for instance, was among the first to preach to Blacks.

The evangelical experience was common to both whites and blacks, making both aware that the ground level at foot of cross.

This led most evangelicals to denounce slavery as sinful, and at the first General Conference of Methodism, slave holding was viewed as grounds for immediate expulsion from the society.

(5) The Awakening reinterpreted the meaning of the covenant between God and his creature.

In Puritan theology the focus was on what God has done for us.

In the aftermath of the Awakening, the new emphasis was on what man can do in response to God's great gift.

The responsibility for salvation is not God's but man's.

(5) A complete dissolving of the theocracy occurred.

The establishment in Virginia and North Carolina began to fall apart.

Ministers could no longer control the direction of religious life.

It had been democratized and made accessible by people.

(6) There was a break down in theological consensus.

The New Lights (the revivalists) versus the Old Lights (traditional orthodox).

Those who wanted to adapt the faith to changing times and circumstances versus those who wanted to hang on the old order.

(7) The Awakening responded--like the English Puritans of the 16 and 17th centuries--to needs of the people for reassurance and direction, to give them release from anxiety.

(8) It served to revived a sense of religious mission.

Everyone believed there was some greater purpose behind the revivals, that God's Kingdom must be near.

This is a re-post from January. I started a thread on the Third Great Awakening, but it fell asleep. Take two:


In the early 1800's there occurred the "Second Great Awakening," an evangelical revival movement launched by one Charles Grandison Finney. Although he had grown up in western Massachussetts and was a lawyer there, he made the trek westward after being "saved." He settled in around Rochester, the heart of what later became known as the "Burned-Over District." He became a minister and delivered many fierce sermons or lectures on the revival of religion in America.

This was an America which had gone through an enormous transformation from one of small farmers to industrialization to massive booms and busts wherein people found themselves tossed upon the scrapheap of history while others were building mansions along the Hudson River Valley.

This was an America which was going through a cultural and economic upheaval of the greatest magnitude. People had little prior experience to draw upon; there had always been droughts, crop failures, wars with the Indians, etc. But the people had their land and their wits and their communities to fall back on for help. Now, suddenly caught up in the wake of the natural swings of mining and manufacturing industries for which they had no preparation or experience, there was a big void, and it was filled by the revival movement. Religion has always been "the opiate of the masses," as I believe Marx once said.

A key element here is the massive cultural and economic dislocations brought about during a time in our history when the industrial revolution was having a fundamental impact on the very nature of existance, changing the ways of life that had been practiced for many generations pretty much unperturbed.

The result? When the sh*t hits the fan, Jesus will save you.

Fast forward to the present. We are again going through a cultural and economic upheaval.

For three or four generations, after WW II, people worked, raised kids, sent them to school, bought cars and houses, and always expected (because they were never proved wrong) that their kids would live better than they did. Why not? Wages were rising, science, technology and medicines were making our lives easier and longer lived.

Then, around the 1970s, wages stopped rising. People now needed two wage earners to get ahead. But, hey! We can adapt. We're Americans.

Then, around the 1980s, a new tax structure was put in place which allowed the merely successful to become filthy rich. Donald Trump. Michael Jordan. "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Television Rock Stars. Well, so what? My wife and I each have good jobs, and we make enough to cover our retirement.

Then in the 1990s, Outsourcing which had begun as an isolated phenomenon went on steroids. Mergers became the order of the day. Two big companies with 50,000 employees each would merge and then figure they could get the job done with 90,000 between them. More profits. Stock price rises. CEO pats himself on the back. Takes a BIG BONUS. And unlike the ups and downs of prior recessions, these jobs would NEVER COME BACK. They were gone to automation or computerization. Or they were gone to India or China. Gone Gone Gone. Forever.

Then in the 2000s, the stock market peaked, sagged, and then 9/11 happened, and now my job was outsourced, my wife has to work 80 hours a week, I'm working three BurgerKing jobs, my retirement fund is in bankruptcy. Worst of all, I doubt my kids will ever live as good as I did. What a f*cking shame! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN TO ME? TO US? TO AMERICA?

HELP ME JESUS! I'M DOING ALL I CAN AND IT ISN'T ENOUGH! I CAN"T MAKE IT!

HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME.





Enter George W Bush.

Here we have a Born Again Christian, who gets council not from his father but from his "higher Father." Yep, that one.

Could it be that America, tossed and discombobulated by loss of jobs, loss of retirement savings, loss of the security we once knew (it was always an illusion, but we believed in it), seeing constant moral decay in our midsts (just turn on ANY TV CHANNEL), is going through the...





Third Great Awakening?



Could it be?


What does it mean?

HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME.

[Livyjr]

This is a re-post from  January.

I started a thread on the Third Great Awakening, but it fell asleep.

Take two:

In the early 1800's there occurred the "Second Great Awakening," an evangelical revival movement launched by one Charles Grandison Finney.

Well done, jeffmoskin!

In fact, as you will see from this following post imported over to here from Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, I was making reference to this post of yours, which you should transplant over to there, where it also will be relevant, and appreciated, as you will see when you get there:

I personally find religion and history to be fascinating subjects, AS THEY ARE QUITE REAL, to us, and this Great Awakening, in and of itself, is perhaps a true seminal moment in OUR own American history, in a lot of ways!

Sadly, we don't know OUR own history, nor do we often know our own minds, and so, this "history" is simply "lost", when there is so much of relevance in it to our own times, at least in my opinion on the matter.

We think "what is" has always been, and that is just not so!

And on the other hand, we often think that "what is coming up" is new, when in fact, a lot of the time, it is a repeat of where we already have been as humans, and sometimes, many, many times before, except so much time goes by in between that we just are not aware of that similarity in events transpiring!

In fact, I think jeffmoskin has also made a connection between "right now" and the Great Awakening, although over in my "secular" version of this thread, "Life in OUR America", where I tend to focus more on the secular history side of many aspects of this same discussion.

A problem, of course, with both history and religion is trying to wade through!

There is just so much there that it takes a lifetime just to scratch the surface, which sentiment Mr. A.B. could probably amplify on, since he is in his eighties now, and so, has been at the "game of life" much longer than myself, who am a generation down from his.

I spent quite a time, one time, with Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" on one side, and the Bible on the other, just trying to understand the "times" that Jesus was in, and so, why he might have used the words that he did, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, which are hard to understand in our times, without knowing the "equivalence" factor; WHO WOULD THEY REALLY BE TODAY?

Also, the "structure" of those times, such as who Pilate really was, and how exactly he fit into the scheme of things; WHO WOULD HE BE TODAY?

Fascinating stuff!

And gallons and gallons of blood have been spilled over all those words!

There's the real tragedy, that we just never seem to heed nor learn!

[Livyjr]

There's the real tragedy, that we just never seem to heed nor learn!

And speaking about being in or out of touch with reality, what have we here?

U.S. National - AFP

"Americans say Bush is out of touch, but are more optimistic about Iraq: poll"

1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A majority of Americans say President George W. Bush has a different set of priorities to theirs and oppose his plan to reform the pension system but are more optimistic about Iraq, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Bush's approval rating remained unchanged at 49 percent, while 53 percent felt efforts to bring order to Iraq were going well, up from 41 percent a month ago.

Those who disapproved of Bush's Iraq policy fell from 55 to 50 percent, while those who approved rose from 40 to 45 percent.

Sixty-three percent of the 1,100 adults consulted Thursday through Monday said Bush had a different set of priorities on domestic issues and put jobs and health care ahead of reforming the Social Security system.

Fifty-eight percent also felt they did not share the same foreign policy priorities as the president: 59 percent said the US should not try to change dictatorships to democracies and stay out of other countries' affairs.

Bush's proposal to let people invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts was considered a bad idea by 51 percent of those surveyed, and 63 percent they felt uneasy about his approach on pension reform.

Seventy-nine percent felt it was the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly.

Fifty-four percent disapproved of Bush's handling of the US economy, with 60 percent disapproving of how he was dealing with the budget deficit.

[Livyjr]

And speaking about being in or out of touch with reality, what have we here?

U.S. National - AFP

"Americans say Bush is out of touch, but are more optimistic about Iraq: poll"

1 hour, 31 minutes ago 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A majority of Americans say President George W. Bush has a different set of priorities to theirs and oppose his plan to reform the pension system but are more optimistic about Iraq, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Bush's approval rating remained unchanged at 49 percent, while 53 percent felt efforts to bring order to Iraq were going well, up from 41 percent a month ago.

I was alive myself, back in the Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon years, when that whole crowd, including "Tricky Dick" himself, and Spiro "Spiggy" Agnew, and as I recall Attorney General John Mitchell were all swept out of office, and quite unceremoniously, indeed, by the American people because "Tricky Dick" and his crowd were no longer trustworthy, in essence.

And I was "full grown" when all of that happened, to boot, and so, I would guess that I had a responsibility, as an American citizen, to:

1) know about that "event" in OUR nation's history; and

2) to see, as a citizen, that such crap in office by an American president never occurred again!

AND ....

I thought, naively, of course, THAT ALL Americans over the age of eighteen had similar obligations, as American citizens!

Now, of course, I know better, and I know just how naive I was for thinking those thoughts, because to be an American these days, and in those days too, all you had to do was be born here!

Yes, that is right!

If you were not an immigrant who had to actually take an oath, similar to the military oath, to support and defend the United States Constitution and laws against all enemies, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC, to be a citizen here, then all you really had to do, as an American, WAS NOTHING!

No requirements for citizenship!

No need to know anything!

No need to care about anything!

No need to be responsible, or act responsibly!

Complete and total freedom to do and be, NOTHING AT ALL!

Which is really how we have come to have George W. Bush as a president in OUR America.

George W. Bush appeals to those people in OUR America who do not want a president who is too much above them, one who is doing "about as well as anyone could expect", and here is where George W. Bush fits the bill, as I see it, based upon a lot of conversations that I have had with people on the subject, but mainly from just reading the news on a daily basis, over these last so many years since 1999, essentially, when George W. Bush was characterized by one political pundit as "someone born on third base, thinking he had hit a triple"!

The "poor, little rich boy", who just could never quite find his own way home.

So, he did what a lot of people do, which is their right; he crawled into a bottle of alcohol, became a somewhat mean drunk, from what I can make out of it, and he stayed that way until he was forty years old.

And now, he is the president of America, and he is telling all of us here in OUR America that he knows what is best for us, because he talks to "GOD", while we cannot.

SO!

Hmmmm.

And that is bull crap!

And here, I have to say that before I ever say a word in here, I really think about my own "values", because I do consider myself a "values voter", and I do not like to be vindictive towards another human being, including George W. Bush, AS A HUMAN BEING!

BUT ....

He is not merely a human being here, NOR AM I!

I am an American citizen, and a disabled combat veteran, and in secular matters such as this thread talks about, as opposed to Mr. A.B.'s thread over in "Religion and Politics" which looks more closely at George W. Bush's claims to be acting as a "Christian" while in office, George W. Bush is the president of the United States, and so, he has the "public trust" entrusted to him, BY US, the citizens of America, and you know what, I do not believe that he is capable of acting in a trustworthy manner with that "public trust", which brings us right back to the days of Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon!

SO?

Where exactly do we go from here?

Stay tuned!

[Livyjr]

I thought, naively, of course, THAT ALL Americans over the age of eighteen had similar obligations, as American citizens!

Now, of course, I know better, and I know just how naive I was for thinking those thoughts, because to be an American these days, and in those days too, all you had to do was be born here!

Yes, that is right!

If you were not an immigrant who had to actually take an oath, similar to the military oath, to support and defend the United States Constitution and laws against all enemies, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC, to be a citizen here, then all you really had to do, as an American, WAS NOTHING!

No requirements for citizenship!

No need to know anything!

No need to care about anything!

No need to be responsible, or act responsibly!

Complete and total freedom to do and be, NOTHING AT ALL!

Which is really how we have come to have George W. Bush as a president in OUR America.

"Oath of Allegiance"

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/oath.htm

The oath of allegiance is:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[Livyjr]

I was alive myself, back in the Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon years, when that whole crowd, including "Tricky Dick" himself, and Spiro "Spiggy" Agnew, and as I recall Attorney General John Mitchell were all swept out of office, and quite unceremoniously, indeed, by the American people because "Tricky Dick" and his crowd were no longer trustworthy, in essence.

And I was "full grown" when all of that happened, to boot, and so, I would guess that I had a responsibility, as an American citizen, to:

1) know about that "event" in OUR nation's history; and

2) to see, as a citizen, that such crap in office by an American president never occurred again!

AND ....

I am an American citizen, and a disabled combat veteran, and in secular matters such as this thread talks about, as opposed to Mr. A.B.'s thread over in "Religion and Politics" which looks more closely at George W. Bush's claims to be acting as a "Christian" while in office, George W. Bush is the president of the United States, and so, he has the "public trust" entrusted to him, BY US, the citizens of America, and you know what, I do not believe that he is capable of acting in a trustworthy manner with that "public trust", which brings us right back to the days of Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon!

SO?

Where exactly do we go from here?

Stay tuned!

"Watergate scandal"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Watergate Scandal)

The Watergate scandal (or just "Watergate") was an American political scandal and constitutional crisis of the 1970s, which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

The affair was named after the hotel where the burglary that led to a series of investigations occurred.

The burglary

On June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard working at the office complex of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. noticed a piece of tape on the door between the basement stairwell and the parking garage.

It was holding the door unlocked, so Wills removed it, assuming the cleaning crew had put it there.

Later on, he returned to discover the tape had been replaced.

Upon seeing this, Wills contacted the D.C. police.

After the police arrived, five men —Bernard Barker, Virgilio González, Eugenio Martínez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank Sturgis—were discovered and arrested for breaking into the office of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.

The men had broken into the office three weeks earlier as well, and they had returned to fix wiretaps that were not working and, according to some suggestions, photograph documentation.

The need to break into the office for a second time was just the highlight of a number of mistakes made by the burglars.

Another one proved costly to them—and the White House—when police found the telephone number of E. Howard Hunt in Barker's notebook.

Hunt had previously worked for the White House while McCord, at the time of his arrest, was officially employed as Chief of Security at the Committee to Re-elect the President (official abbreviation CRP but usually referred to as CREEP); so this quickly suggested that there was a link between the burglars and someone close to the President.

However, Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, dismissed the affair as a "third-rate burglary."

At his arraignment, McCord identified himself as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The Washington, D.C., district attorney's office began an investigation of the links between McCord and the CIA, and eventually determined that McCord was in receipt of payments from CREEP.

A reporter from the Washington Post by the name of Bob Woodward was present at the arraignment, and he, along with his colleague Carl Bernstein, began an investigation into the burglary over the following months.

Most of what they published was known to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other governmental investigators—these were often the sources—but they helped keep Watergate in the spotlight and embarrass the White House.

Woodward's relations with a principal inside source codenamed "Deep Throat," whose identity has yet to be revealed, added an extra layer of mystery to the affair.

President Nixon and White House Chief of Staff H. R. "Bob" Haldeman were tape-recorded (a standard, but secret, Nixon practice) on June 23 discussing use of the Central Intelligence Agency to obstruct the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-ins.

Nixon followed through by asking the CIA to slow the FBI's investigation of the crime—claiming, speciously, that national security would be put at risk.

In fact, the crime and numerous other "dirty tricks" had been undertaken on behalf of CREEP, mainly under the direction of Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.

They had also previously worked in the White House in the Special Investigations Unit, nicknamed the "Plumbers".

This group investigated leaks of information the administration did not want publicly known, and ran various operations against the Democrats and anti-war protesters.

Most famously, they broke into the office of the psychologist of Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg, a former employee of The Pentagon and State Department, had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and as a result was prosecuted for espionage, theft, and conspiracy.

Hunt and Liddy found nothing useful, however, and trashed the office to cover their tracks.

The break-in was only linked to the White House much later, but at the time it caused the collapse of Ellsberg's trial due to evident government misconduct.

There is still much dispute about the level of involvement of leading figures in the White House, such as Attorney General John Mitchell, chief of staff Haldeman, leading aides Charles Colson and John Ehrlichman, and Nixon himself.

Mitchell, as the head of CREEP, along with campaign manager Jeb Stuart Magruder and Fred LaRue, approved Hunt and Liddy's espionage plans, including the break-in, but whether it went above them is unclear.

Magruder, for instance, provided a number of different accounts, including having overheard Nixon order Mitchell to conduct the break-in in order to gather intelligence about the activities of Larry O'Brien, the director of the Democratic Campaign Committee.

On January 8, 1973, the original burglars along with Liddy and Hunt went to trial.

All except McCord and Liddy pleaded guilty, and all were convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping.

The accused had been paid by CREEP to plead guilty but say nothing, and their refusal to allocute to the crimes angered the trial judge John Sirica (known as "Maximum John" because of his harsh sentencing).

Sirica handed down thirty-year sentences but indicated he would reconsider if the group would be more cooperative.

McCord complied, implicated CREEP in the burglary and the payoff for the burglars' silence, and admitted to perjury.

The Senate investigation

The link of the Watergate burglary to the President's re-election campaign fundraising committee dramatically increased the profile of the crime and the consequent political stakes.

Instead of ending with the trial and conviction of the burglars, the investigations grew broader than ever; a Senate committee chaired by Senator Sam Ervin was set up to examine Watergate and started to subpoena White House staff.

On April 30, Nixon was forced to ask for the resignations of two of his most powerful aides, Haldeman and Ehrlichman, both of whom would soon be indicted and ultimately go to prison.

He also fired the White House counsel, John Dean, who had just testified before the Senate and would go on to become the key witness against Nixon himself.

On the same day, Nixon named a new Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, and gave him authority to designate a special counsel for the growing Watergate inquiry, who would be independent of the regular Justice Department hierarchy to preserve his independence.

On May 18, Richardson named Archibald Cox to the position.

The televised hearings began in the United States Senate the day before.

The tapes

The hearings held by the Senate Watergate Committee, in which Dean was the star witness and in which many other former key administration officials gave dramatic testimony, were broadcast through most of the summer, causing devastating political damage to Nixon.

The Senate investigators also discovered a crucial fact on July 13: Alexander Butterfield, deputy assistant to the President, revealed during an interview with a committee staff member that a taping system in the White House automatically recorded everything in the Oval Office—tape recordings that could prove whether Nixon or Dean was telling the truth about key meetings.

The tapes were soon subpoenaed by both Cox and the Senate.

Nixon refused, citing the theory of executive privilege, and ordered Cox, via Attorney General Richardson, to drop his subpoena.

Cox's refusal led to the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20, 1973, when Nixon compelled the resignations of Richardson and then his deputy in a search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox.

This search ended with Robert Bork, and the new acting department head dismissed the special prosecutor.

Allegations of wrongdoing caused Nixon to famously state "I am not a crook" in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors at Walt Disney World in Florida on November 17.

While Nixon continued to refuse to turn over actual tapes, he did agree to release edited transcripts of a large number.

These largely confirmed Dean's account, and caused further embarrassment when a crucial, 18½ minute portion of one tape, which had never been out of White House custody, was found to have been erased.

The White House blamed this on Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, who said she had accidentally erased the tape by pushing the wrong foot pedal on her tape player while answering the phone.

However, as photos splashed all over the press showed, for Woods to answer the phone and keep her foot on the pedal involved a stretch that would have challenged many a gymnast.

She was then said to have held this position for the full 18½ minutes.

Later forensic analysis determined that the gap had been erased several—perhaps as many as nine—times over, refuting the "accidental erasure" explanation.

This issue of access to the tapes went all the way to the Supreme Court and on July 24, 1974 the Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Nixon that Nixon's claim of executive privilege over the tapes was void and they further ordered him to surrender them to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

On July 30 he complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes.

Articles of impeachment, resignation, and convictions

On January 28, 1974, Herbert Porter, a Nixon campaign aide, pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI during the early stages of the Watergate investigation.

Then on February 25, Nixon's personal lawyer Herbert Kalmbach pleaded guilty on two charges of illegal election campaign activities.

Other charges were dropped in return for Kalmbach's cooperation in the forthcoming Watergate trials.

On March 1, 1974, the Watergate Seven, former aides of the president—Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson—were indicted for conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation.

The grand jury also secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Dean, Magruder and other figures in the scandal had already pleaded guilty.

Colson in his book "Born Again" stated that he was given a report by a White House aide that clearly implicated the CIA in the whole Watergate scandal and showed an attempt to implicate him as the one responsible.

On April 3, the Watergate grand jury indicted Ed Reinecke, the Republican lieutenant governor of California, on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee.

On April 5, Dwight Chapin, Nixon's former appointments secretary was convicted of lying to the grand jury.

Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious, and the House of Representatives began formal investigations into the possible impeachment of the President.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice.

Then on July 29 the second article, abuse of power, was passed and on July 30 the third, contempt of Congress, was also passed.

In August, a previously unknown tape was released for June 23, 1972, recorded only a few days after the break-in, in which Nixon and Haldeman formulated the plan to block investigations by raising bogus national security claims.

The tape was referred to as a "smoking gun."

With this last piece of evidence, Nixon's few remaining supporters deserted him.

The ten congressmen who had voted against the Articles of Impeachment in committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.

Nixon's support in the Senate was weak as well.

After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict him, Nixon decided to resign.

In a nationally televised address on the evening of August 8, 1974, he announced he would resign effective noon on August 9.

Ultimately, Nixon was never actually impeached or convicted, since his resignation voided the issue.

He was succeeded by Gerald Ford, who on September 8 issued a widely-scoped pardon for Nixon, immunizing him from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed as President.

Nixon proclaimed his innocence until his death, but his acceptance of the pardon implied otherwise in the eyes of many: accepting a presidential pardon is voluntary and constitutes a legal admission of guilt, as opposed to a commutation of sentence, which cannot be denied since legal guilt is established at the time of conviction.

As for the Watergate Seven, Colson pleaded guilty to charges concerning the Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of CREEP was dropped, as it was against Strachan.

The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974, and on January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty.

In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped.

Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977.

Ehrlichman voluntarily entered prison in 1976 and the other two entered prison in 1977.

Aftermath

The effects of the Watergate scandal did not by any means end with the resignation of President Nixon and the imprisonment of some of his aides.

Indirectly, Watergate was the cause of new laws leading to extensive changes in campaign financing.

It was a major factor in the passage of amendments to the Freedom of Information Act in 1986, as well as laws requiring new financial disclosures by key government officials.

While not legally required, other types of personal disclosure, such as releasing recent income tax forms, became expected.

Knowing he was comfortably ahead in the 1972 election, Nixon refused to debate his opponent, George McGovern.

No major candidate for the presidency since has been able to avoid debates.

Previous Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt had recorded many of their conversations, but after Watergate this practice became virtually non-existent.

Watergate led to a new era in which the mass media became far more aggressive in reporting on the activities of politicians.

For instance, Wilbur Mills, a powerful congressman, was in a drunken driving accident a few months after Nixon resigned.

The incident, similar to others which the press had previously never mentioned, was reported, and Mills soon had to resign.

In addition to reporters becoming more aggressive in revealing the personal conduct of key politicians, they also became far more cynical in reporting on political issues.

A new generation of reporters, hoping to become the next Woodward and Bernstein, embraced investigative reporting and sought to uncover new scandals in the increasing amounts of financial information being released about politicians and their campaigns.

Since Nixon and many senior officials involved in Watergate were lawyers, the scandal severely tarnished the public image of the legal profession.

In order to defuse public demand for direct federal regulation of lawyers (as opposed to leaving power in the hands of the lawyer-controlled state bar associations), the American Bar Association launched two major reforms.

First, the ABA decided that its existing Model Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated 1969) was a failure, and replaced it with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983.

The MRPC has been adopted in part or in whole by 44 states.

Its preamble contains an emphatic reminder to young lawyers that the legal profession can remain self-governing only if lawyers behave properly.

Second, the ABA promulgated a requirement that law students at ABA-approved law schools must take a course in professional responsibility (which means they must study the MRPC).

The requirement is still in effect today.

So much did the Watergate scandal affect the national and international consciousness that many scandals since then have been labelled with the suffix "-gate"—such as Contragate or Whitewatergate, Travelgate in South Africa and even PEMEXGATE and Toallagate in Mexico.

In 2003 a scandal involving a group of Poland's key political figures and a Polish media magnate Lew Rywin was frequently referred to in Polish media as "Rywingate"

The idea of scandals ending in "-gate" is itself lampooned in Tim Dorsey's novel Orange Crush, where a fraudulent campaign manager is overjoyed to find that after years of trying to get a "-gate" scandal of his own, he has committed "Seniorgate" at a retirement home.

External links

White House tape transcripts http://www.archives.gov/nixon/tapes/transcripts.html

The White House tapes themselves
http://www.c-span.org/executive/presidential/nixon.asp

Washington Post Watergate Archive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpol...ate/splash.html

Washington Post Watergate Tape Listening Guide http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...ergatefront.htm

BBC News reports on Watergate
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...000/2933155.stm

Watergate.info - The Scandal That Destroyed Pres. Richard Nixon http://www.watergate.info/

[Livyjr]

I was alive myself, back in the Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon years, when that whole crowd, including "Tricky Dick" himself, and Spiro "Spiggy" Agnew, and as I recall Attorney General John Mitchell were all swept out of office, and quite unceremoniously, indeed, by the American people because "Tricky Dick" and his crowd were no longer trustworthy, in essence.

Spiro Agnew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Spiro Agnew
Order: 39th Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1969 - October 10, 1973
Followed: Hubert Humphrey
Succeeded by: Gerald Ford
Date of Birth November 9, 1918
Place of Birth: Baltimore, Maryland
Date of Death September 17, 1996
Place of Death: Berlin, Maryland
Wife: Judy Agnew
Profession: Governor of Maryland
Political Party: Republican
President: Richard Nixon

Spiro Theodore Agnew, born Spiro Anagnostopoulos (November 9, 1918–September 17, 1996), was the thirty-ninth Vice President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1973 under President Richard M. Nixon.

He studied chemistry at Johns Hopkins University and earned a law degree from the University of Baltimore.

Maryland Career

He was elected as County Executive of Baltimore County in 1962 as a reformer and Republican outsider in a predominantly Democratic county.

Democrats also helped elect him governor of Maryland in 1966 after George P. Mahoney, a Baltimore paving contractor and perennial candidate running on an anti-integration platform, narrowly won the Democratic gubernatorial primary out of a crowded slate of eight candidates.

Many Democrats opposed to segregation crossed party lines to give Agnew the governorship by 82,000 votes.

As governor, he backed tax and judicial reforms and projected an image of racial moderation during the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

His moderate image, immigrant background and successful political career in a traditionally Democratic state made him an attractive running mate for Nixon in 1968.

Presidential campaigns

Agnew became a lightning rod for anti-war opinion when he publicly and angrily denounced critics of U.S. war policy in Vietnam.

He was known for attacking his opponents with unusual turns of phrase.

Among his most famous were "nattering nabobs of negativism", which his speechwriter William Safire claims to have written, and "effete corps of impudent snobs".

Both expressions refer to the press corps, whom both Agnew and Nixon considered to be their ideological enemies and which ultimately played an important role in Nixon's downfall.

White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan has been credited with coming up with "pusillanimous pussyfoots" and "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history".

Agnew is also generally credited with being the first to use the term "radiclib", an abbreviation of "radical liberal".

Agnew toned down his rhetoric and dropped most of the alliterations after the 1972 general elections.

Resignation

On October 10, 1973, Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office.

Unlike John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate, Agnew resigned after pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal charge of tax evasion, part of a scheme where he allegedly accepted $29,500 in bribes during his tenure as governor of Maryland.

Agnew was fined $10,000 and put on three years' probation.

He was later disbarred by the State of Maryland.

His resignation triggered the first use of the 25th amendment, as the vacancy prompted the appointment and confirmation of Gerald R. Ford as his successor.

Ford hadn't been Nixon's first choice, however.

Nixon's top three choices were Texas Governor John Connally, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan.

Nixon thought Connally was too unpopular, and Rockefeller and Reagan unlikely to be confirmed by both Houses of Congress.

Agnew died suddenly on September 17, 1996, a few hours after being hospitalized and diagnosed with an advanced, yet to that point undetected, form of leukemia.

He is buried in Dulaney Valley Memorial Gardens, a cemetery in Timonium, Maryland, outside of Baltimore, Maryland.

External Link

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Spiro AgnewUniversity of Maryland's repository for all things Spiro Agnew http://www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/culture...m?ArticleID=815

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew"

[Livyjr]

And speaking about being in or out of touch with reality, what have we here?

U.S. National - AFP

"Americans say Bush is out of touch, but are more optimistic about Iraq: poll"

1 hour, 31 minutes ago 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A majority of Americans say President George W. Bush has a different set of priorities to theirs and oppose his plan to reform the pension system but are more optimistic about Iraq, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Bush's approval rating remained unchanged at 49 percent, while 53 percent felt efforts to bring order to Iraq were going well, up from 41 percent a month ago.

Those who disapproved of Bush's Iraq policy fell from 55 to 50 percent, while those who approved rose from 40 to 45 percent.

Middle East - AP

"U.S. Troops Deaths in Iraq Rise to 1,500"

Thu Mar 3, 8:13 AM ET

By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq rose to 1,500 after the military announced Thursday that a soldier was killed in action just south of the capital, an Associated Press count showed.

The latest fatality occurred Wednesday in Babil province, part of an area known as the "Triangle of Death" because of the frequency of insurgent attacks on U.S.- and Iraqi-led forces there.

Amid the violence, Iraq's government said it will extend a state of emergency across the country, except for Kurdish-run areas, until the end of March.

The emergency decree, first announced nearly four months ago, includes a nighttime curfew and gives the government extra powers to make arrests without warrants and launch police and military operations when it deems necessary.

In eastern Baghdad, two suicide car bombs exploded outside the Interior Ministry, killing at least two policemen and wounding five others, police Maj. Jabar Hassan said.

Officials at nearby al-Kindi hospital said 15 people were injured in the blasts.

Hassan said the car bombers had been trailing a police convoy that was trying to enter the ministry.

Iraqi security forces opened fire on the vehicles and disabled them before they could arrive at a main checkpoint outside the building, said Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman, an Interior Ministry spokesman.

"Casualties were very small because they didn't get to the checkpoint," Abdul-Rahman said.

In the north, insurgents blew up a gas pipeline that links Kirkuk to Dibis, said Col. Nozad Mohammad, a state oil security official in Kirkuk.

Mohammad said the blast would decrease gas production but he could not say by how much.

He said repairs would take at least five days.

Last week, saboteurs blew up an oil pipeline in the same area.

Meanwhile, talks aimed at forging a new coalition government faltered Wednesday over Kurdish demands for more land and concerns that the dominant Shiite alliance seeks to establish an Islamic state, delaying the planned first meeting of Iraq's new parliament.

The snag in negotiations between Shiite and Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq came as clashes and two other car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday killed at least 14 Iraqi soldiers and police officers — the latest in a relentless wave of violence since elections Jan. 30.

The group led by Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, purportedly claimed responsibility in an Internet posting for Wednesday's clashes and at least one of the bombings.

It also claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing Monday that killed 125 people in Hillah, a town south of the capital.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie vowed the attacks would not derail the political process.

"The Iraqi government will go after and hunt down each and every one of these terrorists whether in Iraq or elsewhere," he said.

The U.S. soldier killed Wednesday was assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and died "while conducting security and stability operations," the military said without elaborating.

As is customary, the name of the soldier was withheld pending notification of family.

U.S. troops are killed nearly every day in Iraq.

The latest death brought to at least 1,500 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the U.S.-led war in Iraq began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

At least 1,140 died as a result of hostile action, according to the Defense Department.

The figures include four military civilians.

Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 1,362 U.S. military members have died, according to AP's count.

That includes at least 1,030 deaths resulting from hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

The tally was compiled by the AP based on Pentagon records and AP reporting.

The U.S. exit strategy is dependent on handing over responsibility for security to Iraq's fledgling army and police forces.

Forming Iraq's first democratically elected coalition government is turning out to be a laborious process.

Shiite and Kurdish leaders, Iraq's new political powers, failed to reach agreement after two days of negotiations in the northern city of Irbil, with the clergy-backed candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, leaving with only half the deal he needed.

The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance, which has 140 seats in the 275-member National Assembly, hopes to win backing from the 75 seats held by Kurdish political parties so it can muster the required two-thirds majority to insure control of top posts in the new government.

Al-Jaafari indicated after the talks that the alliance was ready to accept a Kurdish demand that one of its leaders, Jalal Talabani, become president.

However, he would not commit to other demands, including the expansion of Kurdish autonomous areas south to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

Politicians had hoped to convene the new parliament by Sunday.

But Ali Faisal, of the Shiite Political Council, said the date was now "postponed" and that a new date had not been set.

"The Kurds are wary about al-Jaafari's nomination to head the government."

"They are concerned that a strict Islamic government might be formed," al-Faisal said.

"Negotiations and dialogue are ongoing."

In another twist, alliance deputy and former Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi was to meet Thursday with interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, whose party won 40 seats in the assembly.

It was unclear why the meeting between the two rivals was taking place.
___

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub, Patrick Quinn, Todd Pitman and Antonio Castaneda in Baghdad contributed to this report.