Death Penalty??

There are many innocent people alive today, because the appeals process dragged on for years, and evidence of their innocence was found.

"Streamlining" the appeals process would simply mean more innocent people executed. We need to be very careful when we authorize the state to kill someone.

 

Streamlining! That's the word I've been looking for for days! Infuruating when the words don't come to you, isn't it?

I agree - I'd hate to see the process streamlined. I just wonder who around here actually would like to see it? With the allusions to the low cost of actual executoin and the high cost of appeals, it would just make sense that to get rid of these high costs, we streamline the system, right?

*sigh* Sometimes I don't know why I let myself get embroiled in these discussions.

 

Just a note about Barton (and I have not checked this piece to see if it is accurate or not).

Barton is not trustworthy on any historical subject. He has been guilty of manufacturing quotes (specifically Madison quotes) to support his position.

Now, while that says nothing about whether he is telling the truth here or not, or whether his point is valid, you should be skeptical when using sources from someone with a history of untruthfullness. At the very least, you should verify his work.

http://www.au.org/press/pr4401.htm

[ July 30, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Morat ]

 

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

To answer the last question, yes, many founding fathers fit the actual definition of Deism. Let us look at dictionary.com which provides a very accurate definition of Deism. Deism is not agnosticism nor is it atheism. To provide vague synonyms is a red herring.

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Deism is the Age of Reason's religion folks. The above is Deism. Now, let us begin to examine the paragraphs concerning the founding fathers...

None of the notable Founders fit this description.

Because the author provided an inaccurate definition. This is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

If you read the above quotes, they mesh quite nicely with Deistic thought. There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that Thomas Paine was a Deist. He believed in a God, yes. But that God was not our God. Paine's work "The Age of Reason" is essentially a very large anti-Christian tract. I give you one example of many from that publication:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Not a very Christian message.

I'm actually amazed this article dared to try and say Paine was a Christian. The notion is absurd. That being said, and I'm going to do this with each of these men, the question before us isn't whether or not Paine was a Christian (he obviously isn't but let's just say he is for the fun of it). The question before us is whether or not Paine supported a secular or a theocratic government. The answer is quite clearly the former. In the introduction to the Age of Reason, Paine writes...

"I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."

I think his sentiments are quite clear.

 

This is absolutely correct.

I spent about a year checking out Barton's "history" and found it almost entirely based on blatant untruths, partial quotes and half truths. For the longest time he misquoted the First Amendment in his materials!

If you want to use his material, you should go to the library (or www.findlaw.com) and check all of his legal sources because he usually misquotes or misrepresents them. (I remember one case where Barton put elipses (...) between two words he was quoting from a case, but the footnote cited the quote coming from more than two pages. I checked it out and noticed that Barton had edited out about 430 words (including whole paragraphs and topic changes) to manufacture a quote to support his point.)

His stuff can't be trusted, but that doesn't keep many leaders of the Religious Right from using (and sometimes plagarizing) his material.

 

I think it was called a draw long ago. In fact, as passionate as the debate got, I don't think it was my intent to get anyone to change their opinion. Merely an intellectual debate with opinions on all sides.

It's clear we all feel very strongly about our positions. I think that's good. It makes us more likely to seek information pertaining to both sides in order to make our individual opinions more well formed so as to make our case intelligently when asked to do so. All the opinions are valid, I think. We all just think ours is the right one. If we didn't, we wouldn't argue so passionately, right?

Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that finding the information you want would change your opinion. I was merely pointing out the two directions whatever information you find could take you. Sometimes I look for information to support my opinion, and end up getting back up on the fence because the information I found didn't support my argument. From there, I can either find another argument that does stand up, or change my opinion. That's all. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest you'd change your mind after reading the things I've read. We should all try to strengthen our convictions on opinions such as these.

Phew. This has been rocky at times, but good. After four years in a school where most people felt the same way on this issue, it was nice to have a debate about it again. A way of strengthening my own opinion, perhaps.

In Peace.

 

Multi,

Thank You!

I wonder that if this or something like it happened to them or a loved one; would their stand change?

Or if all of a sudden these perverts, rapists, fagots, murderers, homos, pedophile, queers, etc... were released into their neighborhoods, what would their stand be?

You can always be liberal until the boat lands on your shore!

[ July 31, 2002, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

I've said before, Just, that I like to think I've thought through my stance enough not to change my opinion if if happened to me. Honestly, I don't think I would change my mind. I'm sure I'd have all the feelings every other survivor has, but would be able to stay rational enough to stick my by morals. What good is having morals if you don't stick to them when going gets tough? Isn't that why we come up with our positions before we're put in a position in which we mught make an irrational or uninformed decision.

Interesting comparison you make between murderers and gay people. That's just petty. And such lovely language.

 

I'm very sure that I would want to kill someone who hurt anyone I loved. I want to kill Avila. It's normal to be vengeful.

But it's not right. Most of the evil in the world is done by people who go with what feels good, rather than what they might have reasoned out.

For example, you've let your irrational fears about homosexuality lead you into assuming Avila is a homosexual. He's a pedophile.

According to the all the studies I've seen, the most likely person to be a child molester is a person with a history of heterosexual behavior. In fact, it's usually a member of the extended family of the victim.

 

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

As I said, Benjamin Franklin’s religious views changed as frequently as the Philadelphia weather. So, in a word, it would be accurate to say that depending on what year you look at, Franklin was a Deist and a Christian. However, he was by no stretch of the word ever a Fundamentalist. I quote from Franklin’s autobiography, written from 1771 up until his death…

“My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Just for kicks and giggles, I searched the rest of the document to see if perhaps, as of the 1770s, he was converted back to Christianity. I found no more references to Deism. I found zero references to Christian. I found about 3 references to Christ, one of which was a very interesting quote regarding a conversation he had with a friend. The friend asked him to do something, “For Christ’s sake” to which Franklin told him that he was doing it for the friends sake, not Christ’s sake. But what I found most interesting was the references I found regarding Jesus. There appears 1 reference to Jesus in Franklin’s autobiography. It discusses the morals in which he has chosen to shape his life.

“In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I had met with in my reading, I found the catalogue more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name. Temperance, for example, was by some confined to eating and drinking, while by others it was extended to mean the moderating every other pleasure, appetite, inclination, or passion, bodily or mental, even to our avarice and ambition. I propos'd to myself, for the sake of clearness, to use rather more names, with fewer ideas annex'd to each, than a few names with more ideas; and I included under thirteen names of virtues all that at that time occurr'd to me as necessary or desirable, and annexed to each a short precept, which fully express'd the extent I gave to its meaning.

These names of virtues, with their precepts, were:

1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself;
avoid trifling conversation.

3. ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part
of your business have its time.

4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without
fail what you resolve.

5. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself;
i.e., waste nothing.

6. INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful;
cut off all unnecessary actions.

7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly,
and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

8. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits
that are your duty.

9. MODERATION. Avoid extreams; forbear resenting injuries so much
as you think they deserve.

10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths,
or habitation.

11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents
common or unavoidable.

12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring,
never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's
peace or reputation.

13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.”

To Franklin, Jesus was a philosopher not unlike Socrates. This is what I mean by taking Jefferson’s words out of context. Jefferson too admired Jesus as a philosopher but more on that later.

As further evidence for Franklin’s ever changing and inconsistent religious views, there exists a motion sponsored by Franklin on June 28, 1787 to institute a prayer during the Constitutional convention. Perhaps it was Franklin’s time of the month to be a Christian? In any event, what is more interesting than the motion itself (which btw contains no mention of Jesus, Christ, or Christian), is the note Franklin added afterward:

”The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary!”

I should point out that I looked up the quote in Barton’s paragraph. It was indeed an accurate quote. However, what is inaccurate is the nature of the document. Barton states, “In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania…” The document he is referencing is actually entitled Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania. The document led to the founding of the University of Pennsylvania but was not a “plan of education for public schools”. Fascinatingly enough, Franklin discusses the school in his autobiography. Clearly, from the reference above, Franklin became a Deist before the construction of the school. Why then the insistence on the Christian religion? In a word, the school was to be funded by Christians. I give you the following passage, again from his autobiography:

“I turn'd my thoughts again to the affair of establishing an academy. The first step I took was to associate in the design a number of active friends, of whom the Junto furnished a good part; the next was to write and publish a pamphlet, entitled Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania. This I distributed among the principal inhabitants gratis; and as soon as I could suppose their minds a little prepared by the perusal of it, I set on foot a subscription for opening and supporting an academy; it was to be paid in quotas yearly for five years; by so dividing it, I judg'd the subscription might be larger, and I believe it was so, amounting to no less, if I remember right, than five thousand pounds.

In the introduction to these proposals, I stated their publication, not as an act of mine, but of some publick-spirited gentlemen, avoiding as much as I could, according to my usual rule, the presenting myself to the publick as the author of any scheme for their benefit.

The subscribers, to carry the project into immediate execution, chose out of their number twenty-four trustees, and appointed Mr. Francis, then attorney-general, and myself to draw up constitutions for the government of the academy; which being done and signed, a house was hired, masters engag'd, and the schools opened, I think, in the same year, 1749.

The scholars increasing fast, the house was soon found too small, and we were looking out for a piece of ground, properly situated, with intention to build, when Providence threw into our way a large house ready built, which, with a few alterations, might well serve our purpose. This was the building before mentioned, erected by the hearers of Mr. Whitefield, and was obtained for us in the following manner.

It is to be noted that the contributions to this building being made by people of different sects, care was taken in the nomination of trustees, in whom the building and ground was to be vested, that a predominancy should not be given to any sect, lest in time that predominancy might be a means of appropriating the whole to the use of such sect, contrary to the original intention. It was therefore that one of each sect was appointed, viz., one Church-of-England man, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, one Moravian, etc., those, in case of vacancy by death, were to fill it by election from among the contributors. The Moravian happen'd not to please his colleagues, and on his death they resolved to have no other of that sect. The difficulty then was, how to avoid having two of some other sect, by means of the new choice.

Several persons were named, and for that reason not agreed to. At length one mention'd me, with the observation that I was merely an honest man, and of no sect at all, which prevail'd with themto chuse me.”

It is ironic that Barton laments about today’s high school students being unable to properly examine primary sources, yet he himself ignores the most important Franklin primary source of all.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity.

Simply not true. Washington may have been a Deist, he may have been a very humble very non-sectarian Christian. What is clear is that he refrained from professing any particular faith in public.

For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Regarding the speech from May 12, 1779, I cannot find it anywhere. I did not expect to find it anywhere. Why? Washington never mentioned Jesus Christ in his adulthood in any writings we have. Searching for the speech, I found that quote at many places. However, I could not find the actual speech in it’s entirety. There are plenty of fake quotes out there (on the other side of the aisle, so far as I can tell, Jefferson never said his famous quote comparing Christianity to the three-headed demon). If anyone finds a full transcription of the speech, please let me know. Otherwise, we must disregard what is likely a fraudulent quote.

Regarding the speech from May 2, 1778, again, I cannot find it. If anyone can find it, please provide a link.

I did find the speech dated June 8, 1783. Instead of the distorted version given by Barton, why not provide the whole thing:

“Now I make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens and the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field, and finally, that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. I have the honor to be, with much esteem and respect, Sir, your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant. George Washington.”

Two things need to be pointed out.

1) Once again, Washington refrains from mentioning Christ. In all the writings of Washington’s adulthood, he never once mentions Christ. There are 2 interpretations to this. A) Washington was simply a very humble and very non-spoken Christian. B) Washington was making a not so subtle attempt to hide his Deism. Either way, it is irrelevant because:

2) Washington did not even write the speech. A speechwriter by the name of David Cobb wrote it.

Barton does not give the name of the person in question that said to question Washington’s Christianity is like questioning Washington’s patriotism. What is well documented is the fact that Washington never took communion.


Again, this debate is a red herring. The question before us isn’t whether or not Washington was a Christian. Those who make the Deist claim are well substantiated, but one cannot rule out the possibility that he was a Christian.

What is clear is his support of the separation of church and state. In a letter to a Synagogue in Rhode Island (Yes, the state that Baptists founded. They once believed in the separation of church and state too), Washington writes:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Even if we contend that each and every founding father was a Christian (which is unfounded), few if any supported the theocracy so desired by many fundamentalists.

As I will continue to show, Barton’s article is a fraud.

 

I wonder that if this or something like it happened to them or a loved one; would their stand change?

I'd like to think not. While I cannot control my emotions at first and I may desire blind revenge, I'd like to think I could reason through my anger and rise above such carnal desires.

Or if all of a sudden these perverts, rapists, fagots, murderers, homos, pedophile, queers, etc... were released into their neighborhoods, what would their stand be?

I'd be disturbed if child molestors moved in. Not for my sake (I am not a child) nor for my children's sake (since I have none) but for the children of the neighborhood. I would not care if gays moved in. In fact, there is a gay couple on the block already. They are very friendly people and for all intensive purposes, perfect neighbors. My sister-in-law's aunt is a lesbian as well. None of them are pedophiles.

You can always be liberal until the boat lands on your shore!

I don't live near the shore, but my ancestors arrived on a boat.

 

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

I’m aware of no evidence contrary to Hamilton’s Christianity. Anyone that claims Hamilton was a Deist is either privy to knowledge no one else in the world has, intellectually dishonest, or simply misinformed.

What should be made clear about Hamilton is the sheer radicalism of his views. No, not radical like Thomas Paine or Sam Adams. But in the other direction. For example, Hamilton supported instituting a president for life. Hamilton was the archconservative of the more-well-known founding fathers. But like Paine and Adams, he was generally respected as well. Common ground united them more than political divide. In the end, Hamilton fought fervently for the Constitution we now know. Even if he initially opposed much of it, he felt that opposing what he could not change could cripple the infant nation. In reference to the prayers before the duel, I doubt them not. He was quite a vocal Christian. However, Barton once again distorts a founding fathers’ position in his description of the Christian Constitutional Society. Nowhere does Hamilton support a “Constitution formed under Christianity.” The relevant portion of the letter written to Rev. Bayard can be found below. Notice how Barton once again twists words around:
“Let an association be formed to be denominated ``The Christian Constitutional Society.'' Its objects to be:
1st. The support of the Christian religion.
2d. The support of the Constitution of the United States.”
Notice the separation between the 2 causes of this group. Hamilton does not write “The support of the Constitution of the Untied States founded upon Christian principles.” This society fought for 2 separate issues. The rest of the letter makes no mention of Christianity.

To be completely fair (but to reveal the whole story would counter Barton’s assertions on Jefferson), the CCS was formed as opposition primarily to Jefferson. Hamilton called Jefferson “atheistic” on more than one occasion, and called him a “Jacobin” as well. Hamilton honestly thought that Jefferson was trying to overthrow the Christian religion. Hamilton wasn’t a vocal supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I sincerely doubt he supported the separation of church and state that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Paine supported. If only Barton didn’t insist on exaggerating his positions, Hamilton was his one opportunity to provide a single point. Hamilton is no Deist, and his support of the separation of church and state is perhaps a bit feigning.
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth").
Jefferson entitled the book The Life and Moral of Jesus of Nazareth because he viewed Jesus’ philosophy as the purest philosophy the world has ever seen. To Jefferson, Jesus was not the Christ child. To Jefferson, Jesus was the greatest in a line of Philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Jefferson writes in his “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others”:
“III. Jesus.
In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.

2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men, who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.

3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.

4. Hence the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.

5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.

Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government.

2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4.He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews, and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.”

As you can see, Jefferson specifically denies Jesus’ divinity. He praises Jesus for advocating the worship of a singular God and calls Jesus’ teachings that of Deism. He rejected the Trinity and his God bears little resemblance to the Christian God. Jefferson compares Jesus to the Greek philosophers and determines that Jesus’ teachings are more superior mostly for their increased emphasis on charity and kindness. Jefferson viewed Jesus’ teachings (the ones in the Jeffersonian Bible and not what he viewed as dogma added by followers) as the most superior philosophy of Western Civilization.

What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality.

Jefferson was not advocating “Christian morality”, at least not what Barton would call Christian morality. Jefferson was advocating Jesus of Nazareth morality, which removes all divinity to Christ. And no, Jefferson was not taking the “red letter” portions of the New Testament. In fact, Jefferson omits everything that occurs after the crucifixion and burial. There are significant red letter portions of the Gospels found after the crucifixion and burial that Jefferson omits. Why? Simply put, Jefferson did not believe in any of the supernatural portions of the Gospels. This includes the Resurrection and everything that proceeded after it.

It’s interesting that the Jeffersonian Bible was intended for use by the Indians. In fact, only Jefferson’s closest friends knew it existed while Jefferson was alive. Once again, Barton lies. You will find no primary source stating that the Jeffersonian Bible was intended for the Native Americans. The first evidence of the Jeffersonian Bible’s existence is found in a letter addressed to John Adams from 1813. However, it was never published in his lifetime and didn’t become common knowledge until late in the 19th century.
And as President of the United States, Jefferson negotiated treaties with the Kaskaskia, Cherokee, and Wyandotte tribes wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians.

Dealing with Indian Tribes is different than establishing churches in America. At the time, the Tribes were viewed as part of America and yet separate from America. Jefferson opposed state funds being used to assist churches for the general population, but to establish churches that a majority of the tribe supported was a separate issue. The question before us then is whether or not Jefferson was active in converting the Natives. The answer is a resounding no. Let us look at the relevant segments of the treaties:

Treaty with Kaskaskia, 1803:

”And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”
Furthermore, it appears Barton is exaggerating his claim. No such sentiments exist in any treaties dealing with the Cherokee or the Wyandotte that I can find. Only the treaty with the Kaskaskia has any reference to religion.

In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

A quote taken out of context. This is found in a letter addressed to Charles Thomson from 1816. Let us examine the text surrounding the above:

”I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.” Jefferson not only promotes his secular approach to the teachings of Jesus in the letter, but criticizes what he views as the hypocrites of Christianity. His detractors. Who were his detractors? See Hamilton above. Though of course Hamilton was long dead when this letter was written, Jefferson is attacking those who follow Hamilton’s views.

As with every other founding father, the question of Jefferson’s religious beliefs is a red herring. The question is not what he believed on the spiritual, but what he believed on the political. Jefferson was the firmest believer on the separation of church and state amongst the Founding Fathers. His support of the separation of church and state is well documented.

Unlike Barton’s misleading mention of Franklin’s policy on a single school, Jefferson, in his Bill for Establishing a Public Education, dated October 24, 1817, sets up a system for true public schools in the state of Virginia. The document contains absolutely no references to religion. There is no mention of “religion”, “Jesus”, “Christian”, “Christ”, “god”, or “Lord”. On a slightly irrelevant tangent, there ARE six references to “science”. There is also one mention of the term “philosophy”. The education Jefferson advocates resembles what just about every Deist would want:

”34. I n the sd University shall be taught History and Geography antient and modern, natural philosophy, agriculture, chemistry & the theories of medecine; Anatomy, Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy and Geology; Mathematics pure and mixed, military and naval scien ce; Ideology, Ethics, the Law of nature and nations, Law municipal & foreign, the science of civil government and Political economy; Languages, Rhetoric Belles lettres, and the fine arts generally: which branches of science shall be so distributed, a nd under so many professorships, not exceeding ten, as the Visitors shall think most proper.”

Jefferson’s school is funded by the state. Franklin’s school is funded by the private sector.

In his Notes on Virginia 1781-1782, Jefferson writes while criticizing a law from the early 1700s:

”…if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”
In Jefferson’s America, religion plays no role in one’s ability to be elected. In Jefferson’s America, religious liberty is demanded. In Jefferson’s America, pluralism is accepted. In Jefferson’s America, Atheists are as excepted as Polytheists or Monotheists.

Jefferson’s Notes to Virginia also contains perhaps the single most impassioned plea for a pure separation of church and state of all the founding fathers. Jefferson writes:

”It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely.”

There is a very good reason that Jefferson is often considered the most intellectual and forward thinking of the founding fathers. He envisioned a time when certain elements of our society would try to overthrow the establishment clause. He envisioned the Christian Coalition. He envisioned Focus on the Family. He envisioned the 700 Club. He envisioned the Traditional Values Coalition. He faced enemies like them in his day. I must wonder if he envisioned his words being twisted by Barton to support a baseless claim.

 

Can,

Well, I suppose you now know why they are so... FRIENDLY...

You sound like you are proud of these abominations of humanity! You forget, they made this choice to live this perverted lifestyle.

YA! Like these perverts are really going to tell you!

Come on! These people need to be told the truth, not sympathize with them. If the world keeps telling them they are OK, and good perverts, then they will never know their need for a Saviour, thus you LOVED them right into HELL!

 

I am neither proud nor ashamed. They are humans, and as humans, deserve the same consideration as you or I.

As you may or may not know, anyone can be a pedophile. The portion of the homosexual population that are pedophiles are very small, just as the portion of the heterosexual population that are pedophiles are very small.

To even examine the situation in such terms is impossible. A pedophile who acts on their urges probably has a far stronger attraction to the children than they do adults. To put it in such black and white terms as heterosexual or homosexual ignores the fact that these people are neither attracted to adults of the same nor opposite sex. They are attracted to children.

 

From far left to the very conservative right, as a Christian, where would you put yourself. As per your post, I would say (my opinion), that you are a far left, very liberal, Christian. This very well explains your views as to a God fearing nation in the past. As for Barton, there are always two side to a coin. The writers you refer to could be easily far left liberals who seem to not have a too close of a relationship with God/Jesus. Clinton is a good example, and yes, he is a Baptist, but not one that I honor even though I made the mistake of voting for him the first time.....but I learned by that mistake. Please don't go on a limb with this and deter Multimom's agenda. Thanks!! As a Baptist I am supposed to be what you would call, midstream, but I am somewhat to the conservative side. I am maybe like Multimom in many ways. Murder...death penality, period!!. For Queers, etc.....they should be in a place all by themselves. By the way, if God's Word has anything to do with it, they just may end up in hell, especially if no one is willing to tell them that they are bibically wrong. WOOPS........that's in the OT and outdated. They CAN repent and change their ways, IF you can say they are Christians. I, for one, say they aren't unless they change.

God Bless...........Alex

 

From far left to the very conservative right, as a Christian, where would you put yourself. As per your post, I would say (my opinion), that you are a far left, very liberal, Christian.

I think I'll use a quote attributed to Jefferson for this one. I have not found a primary source for it yet, so Jefferson may have never actually said it:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone."

I am not one to flaunt my religious beliefs. I try to emulate the life of Christ (though of course I can never attain such a goal).

This very well explains your views as to a God fearing nation in the past.

The primary sources speak for themselves. The founding fathers were comprised of a mix of Deists and Christians. Few if any supported the theocratic tendencies that Barton and his ilk desire.

As for Barton, there are always two side to a coin.

Yes, what the founding fathers actually believed and what Barton wishes they believed.

The writers you refer to could be easily far left liberals who seem to not have a too close of a relationship with God/Jesus.

WHAT? Did you read a word I wrote? I did not quote a single non-primary source. EVERY SOURCE I PROVIDED comes from the words of the founding fathers. Every quote I provided can be found conclusively to have come from the mouths of the founding fathers attributed to them. I provided no quotes i could not back up. The text that is not quoted was written by me. This is the nature of solid research. Barton is quite right that only 5% of the population knows how to analyze primary sources. Please reread what I wrote.

Clinton is a good example, and yes, he is a Baptist, but not one that I honor even though I made the mistake of voting for him the first time.....but I learned by that mistake.

Clinton is not a far left liberal. He's an economic moderate and a social left moderate.

As a Baptist I am supposed to be what you would call, midstream, but I am somewhat to the conservative side.

Being conservative shouldn't mean you blind yourself from the words of the founding fathers. Read what they actually wrote. Point by point, I show Barton's intellectual dishonesty. Everything I wrote can be verified by yourself with a quick google search.

I am maybe like Multimom in many ways. Murder...death penality, period!!.

That is not my god.

For Queers, etc.....they should be in a place all by themselves.

Expand on this. What are you suggesting?

It is not the role of the government to be thought police. It is not the role of the government to care what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

By the way, if God's Word has anything to do with it, they just may end up in hell, especially if no one is willing to tell them that they are bibically wrong. WOOPS........that's in the OT and outdated.

I ask again for perhaps the 20th time (every time it is ignored), do you advocate a Jewish Monarchy (or any Monarchy at all) and do you advocate a return of Slavery?

It seems to me we all sin.

They CAN repent and change their ways, IF you can say they are Christians. I, for one, say they aren't unless they change.

I am not in the practice of judging. I leave that for God. So long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, in a free nation, they have the right to do as they please.

 

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon,

It’s good that Barton mentions John Witherspoon. The forgotten founding fathers deserve more recognition than they get. Rev. Witherspoon was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. He was a Presbyterian preacher and served for the Continental Congress and New Jersey Legislatures. He is an important yet forgotten man. He also served as president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) where James Madison attended. From the College of New Jersey, Madison (like every student at the College), received extensive lessons in Christian theology as well as extensive lessons in Greek and Roman philosophy. He studied law and philosophy. Following his graduation, he did indeed study under Witherspoon for another six months. Under Witherspoon, he was taught theology but also learned the great works of the Enlightenment: Newton, Voltaire, Swift, Locke, and many others. It should be noted that while Madison studied theology, enlightenment philosophy, and law, he pursued none as a profession.

and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ."

William Bradford and James Madison were good friends. They held regular correspondence with one another. Let us examine some of those correspondence.

In a letter to Bradford dated January 24, 1774, Madison writes:

”If the Church of England had been the established, and general Religion in all the
Northern Colonies as it has been among us here, and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the Continent, It is clear to me that slavery and Subjection might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of Religious Sentiments begets a surprizing confidence, and Ecclesiastical Establishments tend to great ignorance and Corruption…”

Even in 1774, Madison recognized the follies of mixing religion and government.

In a letter dated April 1, 1774, Madison writes:

”Our Assembly is to meet the first of May, When It is expected something will be done in behalf of the Dissenters: Petitions I hear are already forming among the Persecuted Baptists and I fancy it is in the thoughts of the Presbyterians also to intercede for greater liberty in matters of Religion. For my part I can not help being very doubtful of their succeeding in the Attempt. The Affair was on the Carpet during the last Session; but such incredible and extravagant stories were told in the House of the monstrous effects of the Enthusiasm prevalent among the Sectaries and so greedily swallowed by their Enemies that I believe they lost footing by it, and the bad name they still have with those who pretend too much contempt to examine into their principles and Conduct, and are too much devoted to the ecclesiastical establishment to hear of the Toleration of Dissentients, I am apprehensive, will be again made a pretext for rejecting their requests. The Sentiments of our people of Fortune & fashion on this subject are vastly different from what you have been used to. That liberal catholic and equitable way of thinking as to the rights of Conscience, which is one of the Characteristics of a free people, and so strongly marks the People of your province, is but little known among the Zealous adherents to our
Hierarchy. We have, it is true, some persons in the Legislature of generous
Principles, both in Religion & Politicks, but number not merit you know is necessary to carry points there. Besides, the Clergy are a numerous and powerful body, have great influence at home by reason of their connection with & dependence on the Bishops and Crown, and will naturally employ all their art & Interest to depress their rising Adversaries; for such they must consider dissenters who rob them of the good will of the people and may in time endanger their livings & security.”

Madison’s sentiments in both these letters are clear. When religion gets into the government, the government becomes thoroughly corrupted. For these reasons, Madison fought strenuously for the separation of church and state when this nation’s government was founded. Madison admired Bradford’s colony of New York, a colony which guaranteed religious liberty.

Regarding the quote Barton provides, it supposedly comes from a letter dated 1773. I simply cannot find the primary source of it. If the words do exist, they are most likely taken out of context. Even if they are not, one needs to recognize 3 key facts:

1. They are attributed to Madison at a time when he was studying, amongst other things, theology. He eventually rejected that pursuit.

2. At the time, Bradford was merely a college friend. Madison was merely a college student. Barton misleads us by saying the letter was to Attorney General Bradford. Bradford would not become attorney general until years later.

3. As the letters to Bradford from 1774 indicate, even if that was Madison’s sentiment at the time, he quickly changed his tune.

And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers
frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

Yes. Madison did not want the state to advocate one religion over another. That is the basics of the establishment clause. Madison’s sentiments with regards to the wall between church and state are made clear in many of his writings. In a letter addressed to Edward Livingston on July 10, 1822, Madison writes:

”I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Congs., when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nad. Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to the Constn. the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat.

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive
Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U. S., would rally, as they did in Virga. When religious liberty was a Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.”

Madison opposed using public funds to support the Chaplain. Madison quite clearly indicates that he feels the more church and state remain separate, the better it is for both parties.

Barton would probably suggest that Madison merely didn’t advocate supporting one Christian sect over another. Such sentiments further hide the actual stances of the founding fathers. In a speech addressed to the Virginia General Assembly on June 20, 1785, Madison said:

”Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

It really doesn’t matter whether or not Madison adopted Christianity or Deism. Evidence exists to support both claims. What does matter is the clear indication that he, like almost every other founding father, insisted on a firm separation between church and state.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist.

None of the founding fathers fit Barton’s definition of Deism. Had he provided the actual definition, it would become clear that Paine and Jefferson were definitely Deists and Madison and Washington certainly are potential Deists.

And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest.

Actually, this is the tactic used by Barton, only he used the tactic very poorly.

This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

Barton is correct. That is why most merely state that there was a mixture of Deists and Christians. What they believed on spiritual matters is irrelevant. The question before us is what they believed in terms of religious intrusion in government.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

If every person mentioned above is a Christian (which quite frankly I find no need to explore), it doesn’t matter. Barton is using a red herring again. No one denies that many founding fathers were Christians.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

I wish Barton would follow his own advice. The primary sources speak wonders. I question the validity of a few quotes in this piece. I simply cannot find them. I welcome anyone to provide the full text in which these quotes originate, and I will gladly examine them. This is the nature of intellectual inquiry.

[ August 01, 2002, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Candide ]

 

I certainly don't want to discourage you from doing this researach (on the contrary - earlier I encouraged it!), but I wonder what the point will be in determining that it is inexpensive to do the actual executing and expensive to try?

I've asked it before, and no one seems to want to answer - does it matter where the expense lies? Aren't they both part and parcel of the whole thing? If the research proves the hyposthesis (that even I stipulate), that it is cheap to execute and pricey to try, what does that mean? Does it mean we should streamline the system to eliminate DAs and public defenders and appeals across the board? Because if it does not mean that, then the cost of each individual bit doesn't matter at all. It would only matter if we planned to completely change the way our judicial system operates. Is that what is being suggested here?