Hey, what happened to the pop-up comments boxes? Much preferred, for a couple of reasons:

== They allow one to post a comment then go back over to browsing the main site while waiting for the comment server to do its bidness.

== Too many clicks of the BACK button involved now to get back to where you were on the main page.

== Most important, for me: I've always had some odd problem with these archived comments pages. Using WinXP, IE6.0, a lot of times the comments don't show up at all. They're "there," but invisible -- I have to highlight them with my cursor to read them. Anyone else get this?

Sorry -- it's off-topic, but u-r-g-e-n-t!

(And now this! I just got an error message: "Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: urg*nt" So I've now changed the final word above to include hyphens. What's going on??!)

Whoops. Just saw the post below about comments changes.

It suc... um, stinks you're getting spammed. But my problem with the "invisible comments" is still a problem...

Crystal Eastman was the sister of Max Eastman, a hero of mine and arguably the first neoconservative.

You can right-click on the comments link and open a new broser window (unless you have one of those gawdawful single button mouses the Macs come with), and use that in place of the pop-up box to comment and post, while the other window remains on the main page.

As for the ACLU, evevy once in a while one of the chapters stands on principle and does something that goes against their normal ideological bent. Defending Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights on his medical records is one example (whether or not you believe in privacy rights isn't the issue here, it's that the ACLU does, but its membership in general thinks Limbaugh is right behind Bush, Cheney and Rove on the evildoer list). Their support of him stirred up the biggest internal hornets nest since the Skokie march 20 years earlier, since it's true the bulk of its members adjust their civil liberty beliefs based on how much they like the person(s) whose civil liberties are being violated.

You kind of wonder when you see someone like Nadine Strossen there, who has actually defended the rights of gun owners.

Just in case you didn't know, but you probably did, the United States wasn't founded on "Christian Values". A large number of our founding fathers, including the second, third, fourth, and fifth presidents were deists. And about the Communist Party. Frankly, although I'm disturbed about its closeness to the Soviet Union, the Communist and Socialist Workers (Trotskyist) parties were the first parties to stand up for Civil Rights (After Equal Rights and sort of Republicans pre-1876)... which makes them not an entirely bad organization.

So we can think of the founder of the ACLU as not a "Communist" leader, but a civil rights leader.

lm:

That's utter nonsense:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html

George Washington
First Inaugural Address
In the City of New York
Thursday, April 30, 1789

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. [...]

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

That's an odd sort of "rebuttal" to post, considering that nothing about it refutes the previous poster's point that "A large number of our founding fathers, including the second, third, fourth, and fifth presidents were deists." Or his point about "Christian values."

What? That Washington wasn't a Deist and that the first public utterance of the Republic's history specifically states that the Republic is a function of God's will? No, you're right, that's wildly off-point.

John: Us gawdawful Mac users can command-click on a link to open it in a new window.

Papaya --

I know -- we have both Macs and PCs operating down at the office. It's just that when we pull the new G5s or the little eMacs out of their boxes, we toss their mouses into the storage closet and go out and buy some two-button USB laser mice. Much simpler, but there are certain things that Mr. Jobs gets in his head that are difficult to change (as opposed to Mr. Gates' main problem, which is weasely bundling new software into his system to co-op rival companies business, and then saying it can't be taken out while doing nothing to advance to product once you've killed off the competition).

Deism would be a big step up for a lot of people these days. But, it is still based on the same sort of fantasy that drives libertarians.

There is only one "natural law" --- kill, or be killed --- and it is the basis for tribal society, not civilized society.

Like a pacifist, a libertarian has no moral authority to enforce his will. And like pacifists, libertarians have no center of gravity around which to build the kind of coalition required to run a country.

For that, you need a nation under God --- either a king, or a republic.

Nothing about the phrase "Almighty Being" indicates a belief in Christ, or Christian values.

Now, I know as well as you do that the country was founded on Christian values. It's just that your rebuttal -- an excerpt by the 1st president -- did not refute anything the poster wrote.

Semolina:

It shows he wasn't a deist--nor were any of the other presidents, of course--and explicitly states that American liberties derive from God.

If your point is that Washington may have been a crypto-Jew and invoking Jewish rather than Christian values, there's no real difference so I'll gladly yield the strange point.

OJ:

Jefferson, for one, was very much a deist. Believing liberties derive from God also does nothing to contradict many of the founders were Deists. If anything, it reinforces the point.

Semolina is correct. Whatever the merits of your position, the rebuttal you provided completely avoided the point.

Semolina:

I am inflicted with IE at work--resizing the window (typically smaller) will at some point suddenly cause the comments to appear.

Anon:

Not only was Jefferson not a deist he instructed that Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality be taught as part of the curriculum at the public college he founded:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/011958.html

I have a great deal of trouble believing that people like Rev. Peter Muhlenberg and Rev. Peter Frelinghuysen and Rev. John Witherspoon would have signed onto a system which would abjectly reject Christianity as a founding basis for the Republic. It is precisely America's founding by European dissenter Christian faiths that provides the freedom for religious minorities and the relgious fervor that are both central to the American experience.

If I remember correctly, Jefferson had some very harsh things to say about Christianity.

And try as I might, I just can't find anything in either the Declaration of the Constitution that says Christianity is a pre-requisite to enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines.

All things that Christianity had often traduced.

All Christians have harsh things to say about Christianity.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"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."

OJ:

I'm familiar with the text, thanks.

I'm still looking real hard for where it says Christianity is a pre-requisite. "Creator" is about as generic a term as one could hope for. Sounds awfully Deistic to me.

I'm guilty of poor word choice. Instead of traduce, I should have used "violated."

Jeff:

That's a common mistake atheists make after reading the looney pamphlets they get about how evil Christianity is and howe it never mattered in America. Creator is a term that had quite specific moment and would have been anathema to a deist.

Likewise, in his ownm first innaugural he speaks of a God active in the affairs of men:

And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

OJ:

Sorry, I'm not an atheist, and I don't read pamphlets.

There are many religions who believe, apropos of nothing, that God is active in the affairs of men. Christianity is far from unique among them.

And, so far as I know, Deists don't have any issue with a Creator, and certainly not as is contained in the Declaration.

Simply put, the only requirement is to take as axiomatic the Declaration's assertions, and agree that the Constitution is a reasonable way to provide for them. Christian, Hindu, or dunnoist are equally able to apply.

The success of the formulation is material, after all.

Jeff:

"so far as I know" is the problem.

OJ:

I checked the definition just now. You are correct.