Answers to responses part 2

Patman wrote: “’ Some would like to re-create the United States in their own image. To accomplish this they need to rewrite the Constitution, interpreting it to fit their image. They also need to rewrite history.’ The only people trying to rewrite history is the Christian right. You need look no further than the Texas state school board. Fundamentalists Christians managed to gain a majority there and set about dumbing down their standards. The problem with this is that Texas is such a large market that their text books will probably end up being used all over the country. This alarmed California so much that they passed a law to insure any text books approved by Texas does not end up in California. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/2695/art(ful)_history_in_texas
http://watchdog.org/4107/ca-legislators-rebuke-texas-textbooks/
You are wrong about the Christian right trying to rewrite history. If anything they are trying to preserve history as it actually happened. They have no reason to rewrite history as the founding of the nation supports most of their positions. The “Fundamentalists Christians” who gained the majority (finally!) are merely trying to set the record straight as it has been progressively changed to meet the goals of the progressives. It is the Saul Alinsky playbook is being played in the revolutionary left accusing their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing themselves to provide a smoke-screen for their own adverse actions. By the way, the truth is never dumbed down. It might be noted that California is going more and more toward socialism and liberal social norms and the state is dying, politically, financially, and morally. They don’t make a good argument for your point here.

Putman continues: “’Our Christian heritage is clearly reflected in that Constitution.’ That is a ridiculous statement. Most of the laws found in the bible would be found unconstitutional in this country. The first amendment provides for religious freedom but the first two of the ten commandments demand that people worship only one god. http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/ConstitutionChristianPrinciples.htm
I will admit that you must be somewhat perceptive to see the Christian heritage clearly reflected in the Constitution. When we talk about our Christian heritage being clearly reflected in the Constitution, we are not talking about specific laws given to the Israelites. They were God’s chosen people and thus had a somewhat different relationship with God. Christians are to be lovingly tolerant of other people as an example to them. Granted some do this better than others. For a Christian there is only one God. For a Jew under the Jewish law, there is only one God. In reality there is only one God and only one way to God. The founders were predominately devout orthodox Christians who had fled religious tyranny in the old world and were led to allow religious tolerance in the new world. The ten commandments are the basis of our judicial system which at its inception looked to the one God to give them guidance and direction to execute the system. The founders were following a more general principle in allowing even atheists to function freely without imposing a state religion. That principle is the principle of free will. God gave the right to men even to reject Him. The “most of the laws” you refer to (an overgeneralization if I ever heard one) would, as you say, be found unconstitutional in this country by liberal activist judges that have infiltrated our judicial system and have perverted it and have really “dumbed down” the system. That is why we have some of the problems we do in society today. That was not the original intent of the constitution.
Patman continues: "’History, however, shows that most, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were ardent believers in the Bible, Jesus Christ and prayer.’ Franklin did believe in God and thought God was active in the world. He also thought Jesus was a good moral teacher. However, in a letter he wrote shortly before he died, he admitted that he doubted the divinity of Jesus. It is well know that Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus and went so far as to write his version of the new testament in which he left out references to miracles and it ends with the death of Jesus not his resurrection. http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both Franklin and Jefferson went along with the rest of the founders in that drafting. They were both religious and devout. Both believed in their own way, but both believed. Their skepticism does not constitute disbelief, and it does not negate the Christian basis from which the founding work was done. I personally am not real hot about organized religion. That does not mean I don’t believe in the church. Franklin had some questions and Jefferson had his own way of looking at the Bible. That does not mean they were not devout. In fact they were.
Patman continues: "’I applaud Mayor Cawley for calling our community to prayer. The Constitution protects that right and obligation. It does not separate church and state as the humanists say, but protects us from the state forcing a particular religion upon us.’ Mayor Cawley's call for the community to pray was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The first amendment does provide for a separation of church and state and the Supreme Court has affirmed that principle numerous times. Would Mr. Abercrombie be defending Mayor Cawley if the Mayor had called for the community to face Mecca and bow to Allah? I think not!”
I adamantly disagree that the call to prayer was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. It was a constitutional call to prayer. There was no specific type of prayer being called. If a Buhdist or a Moslem wanted to come and pray, they would have been welcome though they probably would not have been called upon to pray publicly. This call to prayer does not violate a separation of church and state as it was intended to be, that of the government being prevented from forming a state religion and forcing it upon the people. That, by the way, is what virtually every totalitarian regime has done, even the U.S.S.R. in its enforcement of the religion of atheism on its population. In this nation being primarily a Christian nation and founded on Christian principles it is entirely appropriate that most of the prayers would be Christian of various types. Cawley’s call to prayer was entirely appropriate and is backed by decades of precedent.
I would not defend the Mayor if he called for the community to face Mecca and bow to Allah, or to pray the rosary, or to pray to Budah. He did not call people to pray in any special way, but only to pray. I feel strongly that only prayer to the God of the Bible is appropriate, though I would not stop anyone from praying to whoever they wanted to, be it a door knob or a light bulb. I would criticize the Mayor if he called for everyone to face Mecca and bow to Allah because that would be totally out of keeping with the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded and the beliefs of the majority of society. It is entirely appropriate to pray to the God we trust as attested with our currency and whom we ask to bless America. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution!
Charliebickle wrote: “Mr Abercrombie, you are welcome to your religious beliefs, however please don't attempt to force your believes on Me through your misguided efforts to insist that it is codified in the United States or Washington State Constitution. The Washington constitution is also very clear about religion. Please read the following two quotes about religious freedom and our schools. Your desperate attempt to codify your fairytale is perhaps due to less and less people participating. Your god appears to have no magic, otherwise Yakima could just pray away the gang, budget, low wages and street repairs problems. I also think you are mistaken about Franklin, Jefferson and Paine's religious beliefs.”
Mr. Bickle, you are misquoting me. I am not trying to say that any religion is “codified” in the constitution. The constitution reflects the underlying principles of the Bible. It is interesting that you take my expression of my opinion as forcing my beliefs on you. You seem very sensitive about this, yet you would deny me the right to express my beliefs. If you don’t want to believe, you don’t have to, but I have the right to believe and to express that belief in support of our nation and our government. I have the right to pray for the government publicly and officially.
God is not a god of magic. He is the powerful God who created and runs the universe. Because man is sinful we have the ills of our society. God has given man free will to reject Him and His established principles. When that happens we have things like lawlessness, failing budgets, etc. You can’t blame God for that. We have only our human selves to blame for it. When we reject God’s principles He stands back and says, “OK, do it your way.” When that happens we get the results of humanness. That is why secular humanism is such a corrosive thing and always leads to the problems we are seeing in Greece, Spain, Europe, and O yes, the USA.
I guess we can all read into the writings of the founders anything we want to, like we have done with history. We can be revisionist, which is how I think progressives, liberals, and secular humanists view the writings of the founders and true history, or we can take it as it actually happened without revision to meet our subversive political and moral ends. I would be interested in seeing how you interpret the writings of the founders and what you would extrapolate from them. By the way, whose writing really sounds like “spouting off”? I would characterize yours in that category.

BuckarooCoyote56 wrote: “Ya know..opinions are one thing, but to be honest, John Ambercrombie was one of the main reasons I cancelled my subscription to the paper. Put his comments in the Faith section. I get enough religion from the paper, I dont need his misguided quotes every month.
Yes, please read the constitution!”
I am happy that I have had such an impact on your life, but I and many others would say that the misguidedness expressed is not mine, but that of others. Many try to compartmentalize their religion from the rest of their life. I guess that is appropriate with mere religion. Christianity, however, is the expression of our Creator as He reaches out to us. That you cannot put in a box. You can, however, either accept it or reject it. If you reject it do I have to keep quiet about it. I am sorry, I cannot. If you do not want to accept your Creator God and it bothers you to read my acceptance of Him you are not obligated to read my letters, or those of others who have the same or like opinions to mine. As far as reading the constitution, some perception is needed to understand the principle underlying it. Sorry!
Huh wrote: “So, you are all advocating that Mr. Amercrombie be denied his right to have an opinion?
I may not agree with him or you but your right to express yourself is forever engraved in stone.”
Great spellers these leftists.
BuckarooCoyote56 answered huh: “Dear huh..Not true..thats not what I was saying...EVERYONE has an opinion and a right to state it. But when it is continually religious without any valid point or facts, time for him to be moved to the faith section. Sports comments are in the sports section...etc...You have to admit as someone who is here on a regular basis, he does tend to get ink way too much for ramblings...if they choose to continue printing him..preach on brother...I just wont be reading it anymore..my choice! One of Yakimas main problems is that everyone tries to force their moral attitudes and behaviors on everyone else. I was just stating my opinion!”
You want to force your ideas on everyone else, but heaven forbid if someone expresses an opinion different from yours, then they are forcing their ideas on you. You don’t have to like my opinions, and you can make the baseless claim that they have no valid point or fact (the points do have points and facts but with the limitations of 200 words there is not much you can do but state the issue), but to compartmentalize so you can feel like your opinions are not challenged lacks intelligence. We are told we are not to discuss religion and politics. Why? Religion affects virtually all aspects of our lives. To say we cannot consider religion is like saying we can’t take medicine for physical illnesses. Again, as I have stated, I am not really a proponent of organized religion, but I am a strong advocate of God’s plan of salvation, of those who want to be saved, through Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection in payment of our sins. It was predicted that those who rejected this offer of salvation would think it foolishness. If you feel that everyone is trying “to force their moral attitudes and behaviors on everyone else” perhaps you have a sensitivity to your own state. Politics, as we are seeing more and more every day, affects virtually everything we do. I believe that soon we will have politically instigated runaway inflation, expanded financial crisis, more rioting in the streets from leftist agitators, limitations of freedom of speech, and limitations on actually activities like travel and purchases. Religion and politics affects everything we do. It is obvious yours affects you.
Patman answers huh’s question, "Could you please state what religion exactly Mr. Cawley was endorsing?" :

“The dictionary defines prayer as ‘a reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.’ “All religions practice prayer in some form or another. Prayer is an inherently religious activity. Which religion is irrelevant. The first amendment requires that government have no opinion on religion. If government recommends that people participate in the religious activity of praying, then the government is endorsing religion. The government cannot recommend that people should not pray, either. If government did that it would be endorsing secularism which would also be unconstitutional.

“If, while performing his official duties, Mayor Cawley were to call for the community to reject belief in imaginary invisible beings because there is no evidence that prayer is ever answered, he would be in violation of the Constitution.

“Mayor Cawley should spend his time doing the job he was elected to do: tending to city business. There are enough preachers in this town to take care of religious business.”
Your definition of prayer is right, but your application is absolutely wrong. The first amendment requires that “Congress shall not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This does not prohibit praying, the exercise of religious activity even collectively and officially as has been demonstrated by decades of precedent. That is different than having “no opinion on religion.” The government can recommend that people pray as it can recommend that people not eat trans fats. The first is completely appropriate though the second may not be so much. The government does recommend and endorse secularism, or haven’t you been listening. It is entirely appropriate for a government official to recommend that people pray. This does not violate the constitution and never has, except in the minds of secular humanists. If you don’t want to pray, you are not forced to do so. If Mayor Cawley wants to pray and to encourage others to do so, he may. The constitution guarantees that right, even in his official capacity.