what do you guys think about this?
S.C. might allow religious displays in public spaces
Friday, March 23, 2007

Email This Article
Printer-Friendly format
BY YVONNE M. WENGER AND ADAM PARKER







COLUMBIA - The push to install religious displays in public buildings and on Statehouse grounds has extended to the Palmetto State.

The House on Thursday gave key approval to a bill that would pave the way for the display of religious references such as the Ten Commandments and the motto ''In God We Trust'' in public places. The legislation should be ready for the Senate to take up next week.

The proposed legislation is drafted to meet constitutional standards decided in a June 2005 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court that determined a public display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol building was constitutional because the monument honored the nation's legal system, not its religious orientation.

State Rep. Jim Harrison, R- Columbia, said the proposed legislation allows religious and historical documents to be posted alongside one another in schools, government offices or any other public place as along as its done in a historical context.

''It's a statement that many of our laws are based on our religious beliefs,'' Harrison said. ''We can't force religious beliefs upon those who believe differently, but it can be part of a historical statement that would say, ‘ This is the basis of our laws both in the state and in the country.' '' Roberta Combs of Hanahan, president of the Washington, D.C.based Christian Coalition of America, said the legislation has value in American society. ''The Ten Commandments are the very bedrock of Judeo-Christian culture,'' she said. ''It's a guideline of our moral values. I hope the Legislature has the courage to pass this bill.''

State Rep. Joe Neal, D-Hopkins, said the legislation violates the U. S. Constitution's separation of church and state.

''While I have no objections to those items,'' Neal said, referring to religious symbols, ''I believe in the Constitution. Too often we have public displays of religiosity. What we need are private commitments of faith. I'd much rather have prayer in the home than in schools.''

Neil Caesar, vice president of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina and chairman of the group's Religious Liberties Task Force, said the U. S. Supreme Court decision doesn't need to be reinforced by a state law purported to accomplish the same objective. ''Simply declaring something to be historical and not religious doesn't make it so,'' he said.

John Simpkins, professor of constitutional law at Charleston's School of Law, agrees that it's the context that matters. Mimicking the language of the most recent favorable court decision is a good way to mitigate the risk of legal challenges, he said.

''That was wise of them; it may cause the bill to see the light of day,'' Simpkins said.

If a religious symbol, even one that refers to a specific faith, is displayed in an historical context, it could be deemed constitutional; if it is perceived to promote religion, a challenge is more likely, he said.

While the high court allowed Texas' 6-foot granite monument, it found the display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional because the displays failed to establish appropriate context. Both were 5- 4 rulings.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion for the court. ''Her view was that, where religious symbols have the effect of making someone believe he will receive more or less fair treatment on the part of the government, those displays are unconstitutional,'' Simpkins said.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, national director for American United for Separation for Church and State, said promoting the display of a religious symbol, even in an historical context, may be difficult to defend in court.

Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer, the swing-voter, opted to disallow the display of framed reproductions of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky case because, despite last-minute efforts to display nonreligious symbols nearby, the justice believed the original intention was religious, not historical, Lynn said.

South Carolina's legislators would have to convince a court that their intention is purely historical, but there is little in the historical record to show that the Ten Commandments were foundational in the formation of secular law, and much evidence to the contrary, Lynn said.

To assert that the display of religious symbols in South Carolina is justified on either historical or contextual grounds is risky.

''I think it fails on both counts,'' Lynn said



The list

The Foundations of American Law and Government display must include:
1. The Ten Commandments
2. The Magna Carta
3. The Mayflower Compact
4. The Declaration of Independence
5. The Preamble to the U. S. Constitution
6. The Bill of Rights
7. ''The Star-Spangled Banner''
8. The Pledge of Allegiance
9. The Pledge to the South Carolina Flag
10. The Preamble to the South Carolina Constitution
11. In God We Trust
12. Martin Luther King's ''I Have a Dream'' speech

Source: Judiciary Committee of the S.C. House of Representatives –



Reach Yvonne M. Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com or 803-799- 9051. Reach Adam Parker at aparker@postandcourier.com or 937-5902.

lol does anyone know how to put a h on the end of south in the main title. it didnt take when i put it in. thanks if you can or not. my fault.

No, It's not equal. Whats the point of the phrase "In God We Trust" if we all do not trust in God? What about every other religion? Why not a "In Zeus We Trust" or "In Tom Cruise We Trust"?

"Separation of church and state."

When they speak of - In God We Trust..i guess over in the states,,its a chrsitians God...I dunno but you have a point..why not say in other gods then??

In Ireland and the UK the money reads - God Save Our Queen...meaning the christian God...the queen is christian...it dont say...Allah save our queen ect lol

"In God We Trust" means the christian god and all the other religions like it that call their diet 'God'(note the capitalization). When the world 'god' is capitalized and used on its own it is generally in reference of the christian god because most of the other religions give their gods specific names.

Even so the phrase "In God We Trust" excludes people who do not believe in any sort of god at all(Atheists and pals, Buhdist and pals).

Most certaintly it excludes people we do not trust in God wether he exists or not.

Becky I believe you are some sort of Christian right? Or at least believe in God? What if on all our money it said "In Zeus we trust" or better yet "In Satan we trust"...would you think that would be equal, fair, or even be okay with it?

Pay attention, the intent in these measures is coming to a State near you! But first they decided to start their campaign in South Carolina! Christian Exodus Project

Excerpt: ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The foundations of the United States of America were laid upon these principles, that the rights of man are God-given and inviolate, that the sole purpose of government is to secure these rights, and that the only just powers of government are those specifically delegated by the people. The federal government is restrained by Constitutional Law, the Sovereign States, and the Citizens of those States, each one made in the image of God, with individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

The federal government was created to protect us from the very tyranny it now practices against us...



Always pay attention to your enemy when they forewarn you their plan of attack: The Plan of Action





Position Statement


Excerpt:

Religious freedom:

At no time in American jurisprudence has religious persecution been acceptable. Nor does ChristianExodus.org believe any tenets of the Christian faith promote persecution of other faiths. Our organization stands decidedly in favor of religious freedom and liberty for all human beings so long as their religious behaviors do not violate the God-given rights of others. Again, ChristianExodus.org will not support any efforts on the part of government to violate the unalienable right to freedom of religious belief. People of all faiths must have the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to them under law.

That particular exception is vital. The God they are speaking of is the christian god. Keeping in mind those 10 commandments and the admonition in the 1st, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", the god given right spoken about in that religious freedom clause would deny anyone not aligned with the christian God, rights and freedoms! Don't be fooled by ravenous terrorist wolves in sheep's clothing, that imagine they'll make one State, in this case South Carolina as a start, christian. By seceding from the U.S. , which is the plan of action as well. This is an example of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Only the god philosophy that terrorizes citizens there is extremist islam and allah. Here, it is proposed to take on the embodiment of extremist christianity and Yahweh. And if one is paying attention to the other thread, about Ultrasound being proposed as requisite procedure before South Carolina women can access legal abortion, or the "Conscience Clause" that has been allowed to take effect in 13 States thus far, wherein Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions based on religious moral grounds, you'll notice the terrorist movement, at grass roots level, is slowly effecting a change in this countries infrastructure wherein we were at one time guaranteed, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. (Except gays of course)

These extremists are intent on amending much more than that age old National standard, unto a new preamble. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for christians. Talk about seeking special rights! When the anti-equality terrorists fight gay equality they always say gays seek special rights, but this measure in the OP and all others that have a bias separatist religious text to them, are an example of what a special rights agenda is all about. Effecting one nation under the christian God.
If we don't want a future like that which is extant today in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't let terrorists in the guise of faith, win America today! Fight terrorism when it's starting to take hold at the grass roots level, or you'll be praying to nothing at all to free you once they win. Why? Because if they win your personal god, isn't allowed!

The displays should have never been ordered down in the first place, that is unconstitutional. Now, to get the displays and such back up, a law must be passed, which would also be unconstitutional.

Quite the catch 22.

However what was first unconstitutional was the erection of any religious articles within the secular domain. So since that abridged constitutional protections initially, removing unlawful displays is an article of putting right a blatant wrong.

Done

Now if only South Carolina was capitalized. You know, in keeping with the grammar afforded proper State names.

grrr, GW - does that stand for Grammar Whiz now???
*captialized thread title*

Ha! As if!

He forgot one document, The Code of Hammurabi. The first laws to be written down.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

I think I'll move to South Carolina. Looks like a fun place. They need some old time religion to set them straight.

Sounds like something out of 1984.

Let them post the ten commandments in Hebrew, with a Jewish translation. Then, let's see who would accept that!

The writers of the Constitution were Christian, although some were suspected Masons, therefore the foundations were laid for a Christian society. Not until recently, was there any major debate over the First Amendment's validity in the displays of religion, so now the country's in an uproar over the removal of such displays. Regardless of an individual's relgious beliefs, this country was still founded on a Christian faith. No one is saying that you have to believe in God to use money, attend a trial, etc. But to do away with traditions as deeply routed as some of these displays have become is accomplishing nothing more than weakening the backbone of America. We've become so obsessed with trying to be a tolerant society that we've set a new standard of intolerance. You want a polite, tolerant society? I hear Canada's nice.

Which ones were Christians?

Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, all free-thinkers.

Something I have posted in this forum in the past.....

The 10 commandments are everything the United States are not!

There are many different battles across the United States of America concerning the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings/grounds. The posting is illegal as it violates the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause. This does not deter those seeking to have it posted on any available surface. To sneak around the First Amendment many have adopted the tactic of calling it an "historical document" and "the basis for our system of law", often trying to post it as part of a larger display with historical documents. To me, this is like trying to make a marijuana plant legally acceptable by planting daisies and gardenias around it and calling it a botanical display.

But does their main argument hold any water? Is American law based upon the 10 Commandments? Let us examine them.

1. You shall have no other gods before me

This runs directly counter to the first amendment. This commandment demands obedience to a single, specific god. The first amendment gives the right for worshiping any or none.

2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Once again, this runs directly against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is also some dispute as to what counts as a graven image. The catholic church has statues and stained glass windows, while other christian denominations consider these iconography, and therefore in violation of this commandment. Some religious orders even go so far as to be against non-religious images and photographs. If the law prohibited non-religious images that would then be a violation of freedom of speech/expression.

3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain

Now this commandment is directly counter to the freedom of speech. For being the 'basis for our laws' about one third of the commandments run directly counter to constitutional rights.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.

While there is a tradition of seven day week, there is no law mandating that anyone keep the sabbath. People are free to work on any day they wish. Also the tradition here is for a 5 day work week, with two days off on the weekend. Does that mean we are in violation of the commandment? Should we now give up our Saturdays and report to work?

5. Honor your father and your mother

Frankly, some parents might not be all that worthy of honor. There is no law requiring a person to honor their parents. In fact there are laws to protect children from abusive parents, and children can be taken away from unfit parents.

6. You shall not kill

A good commandment, but hardly original. Laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before hearing about the 10 commandments. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.

7. You shall not commit adultery

A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. However, there is no federal law against it. State laws will vary on the subject. If you define adultery as between any couple not married to one another, even if they are both single, then there are even fewer laws against it, and the state laws can probably be challenged. There was not too long ago a case in California: A man and a woman were brought up on charges for living together. The charges were brought up by his ex-girlfriend who found religion, ignoring that they lived together for a while. The district attorney went to the court to have the law stricken from the books.

8. You shall not steal

Like #6, good but hardly original.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

like #6 and #8 good but not original.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's

Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.

Postlude

Out of the 10 commandments, 4 (1, 2, 3, 10) are counter to American laws. 3 (6, 8, 9) are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history. 2 (4, 5) are not a part of our laws. And 1 (7) may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning #7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce.

Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".

by Marc Berard

I suppose one could move to Canada and allow the backbone of freedom be overthrown by the very spirit of what was fled away from, so as to establish a nation of liberty and justice for all. Or, they could stay and fight. Because being an expatriate in another country has it's pitfalls as well. So if you run from what ails ya in one place, you shall certainly find something else to cause concern elsewhere. And elsewhere one has less chance of holding a voice to effect change, when they've prove they'd rather run than speak out in their own homeland.

This country was not founded as a christian nation. And if one believes these articles of the christian faith are entrenched tradition that can not be abridged for fear of weakening the backbone of this Nation, one has but to realize what some that believe this nation is a christian country, are trying to effect in furtherance of laws that command all people to that one ideal. South Carolina's proposed Amendment to the current abortion laws. South Dakotas making abortion illegal. Pharmacists being able to invoke the "Conscience Clause" and refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal moral objection.

The spirit behind the stone tablets that set forth god given commandments, is what is alive in the agenda of far right christian extremists, that seek to take this country back to the bible. And having those 10 commandments displayed in the secular government properties but compels that notion that this is a nation founded by christian standards and that can not be allowed to happen in matters of public policy, because that then makes this a theocracy! And christian standards, if we but look at those that effect themselves amongst their own sectarian communities, are not tolerance, they are not in celebration of diversity, they are not liberal. And as such that insures a national future that is much the same, if we the people allow one religious philosophy to command the trinity of powers in this free country. This country wasn't founded as a christian nation, it was founded after it escaped the tyranny of a christian nation. We can't let ourselves become what our National keystone opposed at it's inception. The tyranny of Theocracy.

Here's some more information about Cory Burnell and Christian Exodus. Rick Ross, who is respected for tracking cults and hate groups has been watching Burnell and cronies for a while now:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_gro...egroups379.html

I thought it was kind of funny that first "12,000" exodus was suppose to happen in 2006, and while they claim to have some 15,000 members, people in the know say it's far less. It appears as though their 2006 exodus was a bust. Not even their Chairman Burnell moved. He still lives in California.

Most of the cult watchers are calling this group a Hate group or at best separatists. It's nice to know that the Cult Watchers are breathing down their backs.

Here's another article from Rick Ross that's a press story written in Feb. 2007. Apparently South Carolina's pastors and ministers don't want anything to do with this group. A whopping 15 Christian Exodus foks have moved into SC. The local pastors quotes in this article are pretty interesting and worth reading.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/christia...an_exodus3.html

Let them seperate. Then let's tell Bush they're holding WMDs, and vaporize their asses...

>.>

Problem solved.

Yes, but then we couldn't access those beautiful beaches on the SC coast, after they're all turned into little wafting 'shroom clouds, and that would be wrong.

No where in the Constitution does it say a government run organization can not display religious material/items/etc.

I dont see any problem having the 10 commandments on display in public privately owned buildings. But on government buildings, I dont think any religious doctorine should be displayed.

Edit: wuha ha ha. My 666th post was about the 10 commandments

oh but don't forget. i live in South Carolina. we don't have much education here.

hey thats not funny. i live 30 miles from the beach and 20 miles from a naval weapons station.

I believe you are incorrect here.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Lets see....shall we

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

law.cornell.edu

Nope.....you are wrong

Well, no I'm not. When the Constitution was first written, the United States was--theoretically--a Christian country and the "freedom" to worship one's religion simply applied to different Christian denominations. It was not an attempt to fashion a country that viewed all religions as being equally legitimate, because of course, according to the Bible, following Christ is the one true path. So I believe that would mean that I'm not wrong after all.

Even more further from the truth......

Religion

The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person's right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference.

The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center operates several Religious Freedom Programs advancing the understanding of freedom of religion in public schools and other venues.
SOURCE 1
----------------------------------------------------------------

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), infringe
SOURCE 2
----------------------------------------------------------------

Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.

Although not a religion, a significant number were Freemasons including John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.
SOURCE 3
----------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like it was so people could practice religion any way they wanted......not just Christianity as you insist.

Are you an American?

Ruh Oh!!! ohh no you didn't LMAO Zannie will keep them coming one after the other now...just when you think its all over...he pulls you back in

Got that line from one of my fav GodFather movies LOL

Zannie has forgotton more about religion, more than people would ever know, meaning he is well clued in...trust me

First of all, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia isn't exactly what I would consider a valid means of proving a point. Normally, I would just ignore someone who stoops to doing this, because it clearly indicates that they are not knowledgable of the subject and are incapable of formulating their own arguments; but I suppose I can muster a brief reply in this case.

Many of the people who came to the colonies came because they were being persecuted in Europe. These people belonged to various Christian denominations, such as the Puritans, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists. Rather than making one denomination the national church--thus recreating the problems of the Old World--the idea was to allow all denominations to worship freely. Even if some of the "Founding Fathers" were critical of organized Christianity, they were all products of a Judeo-Christian culture and I believe most if not all still held God to be the one true God, etc. In no way were they trying turn America in a place where all religions were equally valid; I think the idea that Islam, Satanism, Buddhism, Paganism, etc. would one day be tolerated under the banner of "religious freedom" would have been abhorant to them. You're doing what many people erroniously do; namely, you are applying the modern interpretation of a concept without understanding the context in which it was originally conceived and the change that it has undergone in the interim.

If I have to I could do a little legal research and produce documents (legal court entered documents) to support my claims KGS.....can you?

EDIT: Wiki is an easy source for information but that does not make it an invalid source point.

He certainly hasn't demonstrated it. But it is quite evident that this person won't admit that they are wrong, so I really don't have any intention of entering into any sort of futile debate. I mean, this person cuts-and-pastes from Wikipedia... Hard to take someone like that seriously.

Oh, okay, you just go and find me primary source by these Founding Fathers of yours that illustrate their attitudes towards Christianity and their desire to make America a place where Muslims and Satanists, to name but a few, are free to worship just like Christians.

You're one of those "One nation, One People, and One God" people, aren't you?

Starts out a little something like this: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Goes on to say a little something like this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's see...primary source, check. Founding Fathers, check. Illustration of their attitude and desire to make America a place where ANY religion is freely worshipped just like Christianity, check.

Anything else we can do for you?

When I said primary sources, I meant something along the lines of personal letters, memoirs, diaries...

Now, in looking at the quotations you provide, it does seem to me that you haven't read all that I've posted on this issue. Doesn't surprise. Nor does it seem that you have much of an understanding of the context in which the document was written, either. Also doesn't surprise me.

Why do Christians feel the need to have their religion representing on currency and in government owned buildings?
How many Christians would really care? I bet some of you would be singing a different tune if it said "In Zeus We Trust" on our currency.

The absence of Christian representation on government buildings and currency does not effect the religion at all, there is no rule in the Bible that states "The Ten Commandments should be in government buildings".

But it does effect the government and the country.

I see no reason for a diplomatic free country to represent religious symbolism. Religion should have no effect on the governing process of the country. The U.S. government should be indifferent to all religious beliefs.

There is just one simple question that needs to be answered: Why does it need to be there?

If you look into the backgrounds and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, you'll find that they were more interested in balanced government than religion. You'll find several Unitarians, Quakers, those who viewed themselves as theists. Many of them had abandoned their studies on Theology (common at that time) and took up a more active role in creating a country where all people could live in equality regardless of their beliefs. I have yet to find a truly consevative Christian in the lot.

Jews arrived in the USA in 1653, George Washington himself had a great deal of respect for them.

I think when you look into the history of the Founding Fathers, you'll find a very slim few who were Christian literalists. Most seemed to take exception or have a disagreement to clergy or Church in some form or another.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

You'll notice there are a good number of Congregationalists as well as Unitarians. At the time, Unitarians were by in large considered Atheists or Deists. Thomas Jefferson being the most well known of them.

Well, aren't you the condescending twit? It's alright, little one, I'll forgive you this time. It shouldn't surprise you that I haven't read all you've posted on this, or any other issue. I don't feel like getting a migraine from going over what's vomited from that small mind of yours. The Founding Fathers weren't concerned with what other religions could be practiced under the First Amendment, just that they should be allowed to be practiced. But I guess that doesn't matter to you because you have such a deep understanding of the Constitution and can talk down to any free thinker about what the Founding Father actually implied when they put their ideals to pen, because you've figured it all out. Nothing in this world should be open to interpretation because you've already interpretted what is right, so everyone should just accept your ideas and be done with it. Sorry, I guess I'll just go do very little to understand some other culture now.

Oh, but while I'm away degrading another country's founding ideals, there's a letter you should read that was written by Thomas Jefferson that was riddled with the philosophies of enlightenment. I forget the name, but it starts out something like: When in the Course of human events...

Anyone that KNOWS where to find good sources..is smart enough to post in any debate....how else are you going to learn anything?? reading helps.....HONEST!!

BM.....KGS is so narrow minded he did not look to the bottom of the page in my Wiki link to see the reference sources.....

Read and weep KGS


But it Wiki so you will not want to go there so here are the article sources:

References

* American National Biography Online, (2000), scholarly biographies of 18,000 Americans, including all the Founders. online edition
* Richard D. Brown. "The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View," The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 465-480 online at JSTOR
* Joseph J. Ellis. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (2002), Pulitzer Prize
* Jack P. Greene. "The Social Origins of the American Revolution: An Evaluation and an Interpretation," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 1-22 online in JSTOR
* P.M.G. Harris, "The Social Origins of American Leaders: The Demographic Foundations, " Perspectives in American History 3 (1969): 159-364.
* Mark E. Kann; The Gendering of American Politics: Founding Mothers, Founding Fathers, and Political Patriarchy Praeger, 1999
* Adrienne Koch; Power, Morals, and the Founding Fathers: Essays in the Interpretation of the American Enlightenment 1961
* Frank Lambert. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. 2003.
* Martin, James Kirby. Men in rebellion: Higher governmental leaders and the coming of the American Revolution, (1973)
* Robert Previdi; "Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America," Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1999
* Cokie Roberts. Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised Our Nation (2005)
* Gordon S. Wood. Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (2006)


Looks like a well documented article to me


Almost forgot ....Welcome Devol to UM forum.

My god......

i agree with you there EmpressStar... woo wheeeee.

I think Mr. KGS here is one of those guys who would've joined the Nazi party in 1933.

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer!"

One people. One Nation. One Leader.

Isn't that your philosophy, KGS? Would you like to "Do away" with the 'undesireables'? You know. Satanists, Muslims, Homosexuals...

It's not like it hasn't happened before. Spanish Inqusition, Salem Witch Trials, Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, and the genocide lead by Slovadon Molosovic(sp?).

Now, watch as he tries to take back all the bollocks he just said..

This is why I believe in the Devol lol

here's what i think... better yet... what i know... the FEDERAL RESERVE is owned by public companies... so the government doesn't really control the money... they just think they do...

and if you don't like what the money says... don't use it... lol... make your own money and buy things with it... lol

the majority of people on the planet in general believe in God... so why should we bow to the minority just because any reference to God offends them? i thought this was a democracy where majority rules...

The majority isn't always right you know.

I think having God all on our currency is out of date, but I really don't care.