"http://www.deccanchronicle.com/World/WorldNews.asp#Jackson%20converts%20to%20Islam"

what do muslims do to pedophilles...

DRBILL21,

Nothing to change my opinion. Dream on!

FH123:
Good call.

Your comments bring a smile to my face...there is a wisdom in what you say and how you express yourself...you really have a gift.

My conversation with BEVJIM1 was meant to be a hypothetical in my mind. Should ID come up with a valid scientific theory, would it then be appropriate to include said theory in a schools curriculum. I would say based on principle that it should be, regardless of the theological implications. However, the ID community is a long way from this, and as you say...if it's not a sound scientific formula, it has no place being taught in science class.

My own view on the divine is that to believe in a higher power is the only logical option. I never enjoyed Sartre too much...if I have to chose, I'll take the hope behind door #1.

FH123:
I am aware of the constraints on teaching biblically based curricula in school, and for good reason. My point more was that as mythology it has some standing. The agenda to include ID as a course of study in schools does not, because it is not based on valid science or knowledge that is verifiable and holds to proofs. You know this.
Fundamentalists want to stand it up against evolution as an equal or worthy opponent. It is not. They are blind in their belief, and would teach my kid fiction. Fiction is great to teach, in Greats in World Fiction 101. Or in Mythology of the World 101. Hey, make it Mythology of the Universe, (though there I may have an issue as WE DON'T KNOW the mythology of the univese). I am a big one on truthsaying.
In the meantime I'll take my son to church or the temple for him to get Metaphysical Theory 101 from those who are experts in the fields.

"In short, Darwin himself said that if life could be shown to be so complex that natural mechanisms did not adequately explain its origin, then his theory could be proven false. A "Causal Agent" would in that case be the only explanation for its presence."

Two things.
First, prove Darwin wrong. Show that life is too complex to have developed thru the evolution of life that came before.
Second, prove your assertion that the ONLY explaination is your "CA". That alone is impossible, it is swinging in the dark... Like if your laundry disappears from the clothsline, and you could somehow prove no neighbor or unknown agent, human or otherwise, stole it, then it must be because an angel or devil took it.
There are a trillion possibilities for cause of an action. If we do not know the answer definitively, then we do not know the answer.
In time it will become clear.

JUSTILLTHEN WROTE:
"What you are really speaking of with ID/Creationism a theory of origin that has popular belief built over centuries but is derived from mythology."

You can't teach in a classroom anything that has any relationship to the biblical creation story. That would be contradictory to our constitution and good science. What you can do is build a model based on some biblical principles. The universe came into existance quickly, life is complex, the earth shows evidence of being uniquely suited for advanced human development...etc, etc.

In short, Darwin himself said that if life could be shown to be so complex that natural mechanisms did not adequately explain its origin, then his theory could be proven false. A "Causal Agent" would in that case be the only explanation for its presence.

Hello FH123:

I enjoyed your debating of BevJims.

"I don't think ID should be in schools right now because in its current format its not testible/verifiable/predictive. However, if a testable model should be produced it certainly is worth considering."

And there is the rub, yes? And if it is "testable" I would assume that we are speaking verifiable or at least with enough empirical data to support a postulation.
That or it cannot stand as a opposing theory to scientifically supported origin of species... These are sciences, as taught in schools, backed by knowledge that has been proven over some centuries.
What you are really speaking of with ID/Creationism a theory of origin that has popular belief built over centuries but is derived from mythology. I place biblical writings in mythology since the majority of it cannot be verified as being factually based, much as oral storytelling eventually written in verse. Add the elements of Acts of God, supernatural powers, the miracles of Jesus that have never been verified or duplicated, etc., and you have all the elements of mythology.
I know that christians want their stories of creation to be elevated to science, and I look forward to that. I do not expect it to look like christian fundamentals have it. I am a believer in the Divine, but I don't think any of the Sacred Texts have it literally correct. But I do think we come from Divinity, and will return to it... Perhaps we are in it right now, just are a little blind...

As you said:
"From molecular motors to the incredible complexity and efficiency of dna, if you don't see the possibility of design, you clearly are not looking."
Perhaps we are all a bit blind, and maybe none of us have it right. If we did we might just be Jesus, living "just as I have done, so you also must do>"

BevJims1:

"And the evidence for a designer is not only not there, the evidence is against a designer, except a very poor one."
:-)
I have enjoyed your debate with FH123. I generally side with your take, in that there is no valid evidence for God. And I am not one for believing as literal fact collections of stories without having something solid to sink my teeth into.
However my point here is that there is nothing that DIS proves divine origin or intelligent design either. (One must wonder at the term 'intelligent design' when describing the creator of all things. If that entity were indeed an Idiot, and we were created in His Image,....).
It is certainly possible that, this being His first experiment with Individuation of Oneness and the Seating of Souls into Temporal Incarnate Form, there could be some kinks that did not get fully worked out in the Design Room. Perhaps research and development was underfunded, or prototypes of His Image were not put through enough paces. Perhaps in the rush to realize Gods dream of manifesting Man he skipped a few details...
Gads. What if He, believing Himself to be the Perfect Being that He indeed Was, thought He could do no wrong and whipped man out in a day!!!

We should not judge God too harshly, given the constraints He created under.

Here is another thought. Maybe WE are perfect, and do not know how yet...Perhaps the "junk dna", like many other pieces of yet to be understood information, has purpose that is unknown. Or has purpose that is not current, and so sits dormant but awaiting its' use...
Much is known, to the degree that we have the capacity to understand the world. Knowledge develops. There is plenty of room for intelligent design in what we know. Junk dna no more discredits intelligent design than working dna proves it. The assumption that it is "junk" is based on a presumption that I understand what I do not yet understand.
It is indeed curious.

One more thing...do we really want the guy who forced-marched an entire civilization across the country to be the arbiter of morality...I'm just saying.

bevjims1 wrote:
"One form of bias is starting with a conclusion and bending the evidence to meet that conclusion. There is no other way to conclude a designer created man and animals. And science does not have a bias against a designer. There simply is no evidence for a designer."

You mean a conclusion such as starting with the premise that there can be no causal agent so naturalism is the only science allowed???

Hard to see evidence for design with your eyes closed...eh.

I don't think ID should be in schools right now because in its current format its not testible/verifiable/predictive. However, if a testable model should be produced it certainly is worth considering.

From molecular motors to the incredible complexity and efficiency of dna, if you don't see the possibility of design, you clearly are not looking.

Regardless, I wish you well and have enjoyed the discussion.

FH123 wrote: "Scientists considered everything they did not understand "junk'"

There has been some DNA termed junk where functions have been found, but there is also a lot of DNA that is shut off and no longer has a function in humans. Some of these same genes are found functioning in other animals. Junk DNA is not a mystery and it points to evolutionary scraps of DNA in your genome, or a bad designer who forgot to clean up.

FH123 wrote: "This is not about teaching which designer and to assume that a specific designer needs to be addressed is a strawman argument."

But a "designer"? A spiritual one? Aliens from other planets? What ever you want it to be? This is not science, its fantasy.

FH123 wrote: "Bias...what are you talking about??? Excluding a possiblility due to its implications is bias...I would present every possible explanation...starting with evolution, which is obviously the most plausible explanation for life that we currently have."

One form of bias is starting with a conclusion and bending the evidence to meet that conclusion. There is no other way to conclude a designer created man and animals. And science does not have a bias against a designer. There simply is no evidence for a designer. If there were there are more than a few scientists who would follow that evidence. But there is nothing to follow.

FH123 wrote: "It does not exempt you from any discussion of a creator, or the possibility of a creator, which is the basis of your argument. You continue to create strawmen arguments, which you tear down."

What strawmen? We can discuss designers or creators but when we look at the evidence there is nothing to back it up. The evidence shows evolution, a natural process, brought life to where it is today. What I'm saying is that you can fanticize all you want about life and its origins and how we got here, but that is not science. And the evidence for a designer is not only not there, the evidence is against a designer, except a very poor one.

My real problem isn't that religious citizens (like me) decide to impose their morals on society, as long as those morals involve inter-human interaction. It's when they decide to impose moral values relating to human vs. deity relations that they go too far. We may be a nation of (mostly) Christians, but we are not a Christian nation. There is a huge difference between the two terms.

Things like attempts to force non-Christians to listen to scheduled, event-driven Christian prayers at non-Christian events is (IMO) an abominable misuse of the power of the state (note the use of abominable here is meant to be religious sense). There are many other instances where man-to-God relations have been codified in our laws - fortunately most of them have gone away and I am confident that the rest will vanish within the next decade or so.

bevjims1 wrote:
Really? Have you seen how much junk DNA there is? The only explanation is either a God that was inept at making clean DNA or evolution.

Scientists considered everything they did not understand "junk'...everyday scientists are learning more and more about the functionality of this "junk".

Bevjims1 wrote:
And which designer should the children learn about? There are more than one that mankind believes in. Which should the government teach you child?

This is not about teaching which designer and to assume that a specific designer needs to be addressed is a strawman argument.

Bevjims1 wrote:
But adding a possibility based purely on belief is called bias and is something science recognizes and works to keep to a minumim. You proposal makes bias the basis of scientific study. Once bias is the basis of scientific study it is no longer scientific.

Bias...what are you talking about??? Excluding a possiblility due to its implications is bias...I would present every possible explanation...starting with evolution, which is obviously the most plausible explanation for life that we currently have.

Bevjim1 wrote:
It protects me from religious establishment by the government. You are confusing free religious expression with a government's religious establishment. The two are not the same so don't say that they are.

It does not exempt you from any discussion of a creator, or the possibility of a creator, which is the basis of your argument. You continue to create strawmen arguments, which you tear down.

FH123 wrote: "You can't not allow an explanation because it has a religious component. The cellular complexity, DNA et al., they have a level of order that is difficult to explain without consideration of the possiblility of design."

Really? Have you seen how much junk DNA there is? The only explanation is either a God that was inept at making clean DNA or evolution.

FH123 wrote: "To not allow even the consideration of this possibility due to the fact that it may mean a designer is wrong."

And which designer should the children learn about? There are more than one that mankind believes in. Which should the government teach you child?

FH123 wrote: "Science is about following the evidence wherever it leads, and eliminating a possibility because you don't like its conclusions is going against the grain of the basic principles of the scientific method."

But adding a possibility based purely on belief is called bias and is something science recognizes and works to keep to a minumim. You proposal makes bias the basis of scientific study. Once bias is the basis of scientific study it is no longer scientific.

FH123 wrote: "There's nothing here that protects you from all religious contact...this is about respecting your opinions not insulating you from religion."

It protects me from religious establishment by the government. You are confusing free religious expression with a government's religious establishment. The two are not the same so don't say that they are. And if you cannot understand this then consider how you would react when your child comes home from school and shows you how he learned to pray to the east using a prayer cloth at school. What, you afraid of a little free religious expression?

"I am continually perplexed by the lack of understanding of this concept. I find there is little understanding that while the Constitution allows for freedom of religion, another essential aspect is it guarantees freedom FROM religion. If my child is learning Creationism as part of the public school curriculum then our family is not free from another person’s religious beliefs."

You can't not allow an explanation because it has a religious component. The cellular complexity, DNA et al., they have a level of order that is difficult to explain without consideration of the possiblility of design. To not allow even the consideration of this possibility due to the fact that it may mean a designer is wrong. Science is about following the evidence wherever it leads, and eliminating a possibility because you don't like its conclusions is going against the grain of the basic principles of the scientific method.

"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."

There's nothing here that protects you from all religious contact...this is about respecting your opinions not insulating you from religion.

It seems that so many things which are important to us, that go against the social flow, can be seen clearly only from afar; or by a prescient few up close, whom no one wants to listen to.

Does history teach us a lesson? It always seems to, in retrospect. But I wouldn't bet on that. It all still depends on "who" the "us" is.

A problem persists that there are too many of us teaching too many lessons, from too many interpretations.

Jackson had many flaws, just like the people that elected him. Amazing how that principle of governance always holds. Still, he had wisdom on the separation issue.

In most of recorded history regarding any country or culture, there has been no practical difference between the church and the state. They were in effect one power. Good for the hierarchy in control of both; hardship for the faithful, tyranny and death for the non-believers.

Let's not go back.

drbill21 wrote: "However, and this is a big however, separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of religion and politics. It doesn't mean that because it CAN'T mean that. If one's religion has no relevance to civil matters (which is what politics concerns itself with), then it is a rather pitiful religion."

Politics is the discussion of using government towards an end. It is about whether to build roads, whether to go to war, whether to enact laws, etc. It is not about saving souls, making people better people nor leading people in religious teaching. If you lump these things together then this is why you see no separation. But in England the government dictated church law and the church used governmental power to its benefit including mandatory taxes paid to the church. This also happened in early America before independence. That is the danger Jackson saw and the need for a separation. Today the religious right wing is working to write new laws and use government power to its benefit. Jackson would be appauled. Maybe you should take a trip to Wikkiamsburg where the church's power over the state determined taxes (paid to the church), punishments based on your beliefs, etc. In New England withces were burned due to religion corrupting government. I hope you can undertsand why Jackson saw evil when the church dictates state functions.

drbill21 wrote: "The state owns all the cards... it controls the army and it can impose taxes.... what can a church do?"

But if the church were not separate from the state then the church, as in England or early America, would control those things. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And one church would control those things, not all churches. A catholic in colonial Williamsburg paid taxes to the Anglican church. All you need to consider is what life would be like if a very different church from yours influenced government.

Interesting. You don't say very much about Jackson's views.

Well, we definately have a Christian Party in this country now--the Party of George Bush and Sarah Palin.

Historical references are of great value, especially as the issue of religion and governments has been so center stage. It seems that Jackson had the clarity to comprehend the Constitution without the influence of his devout religious beliefs, rather he had the confidence in the founding principles to let it stand on its own without inserting the values or conduct based on religious beliefs.

I am continually perplexed by the lack of understanding of this concept. I find there is little understanding that while the Constitution allows for freedom of religion, another essential aspect is it guarantees freedom FROM religion. If my child is learning Creationism as part of the public school curriculum then our family is not free from another person’s religious beliefs. This is an important component, often misconstrued as the view of religion haters or anti-Christian politically correct trend setters.

We seem to be in a mode in which Christian conservatives are defending why their beliefs are valid and are threatened by people who do not share the same beliefs but they are not connecting to the real views of fellow Christians, non-Christians and non-believers, which is, we respect your religious beliefs, so respect our choice to exercise our right to be free from your relgion and have different beliefs. Many people worry about true freedom when a portion of a political party advocates for a Constitutional amendment to formally recognize America as a Christian nation. This is against everything our founders wanted for us. The willingness to take on such a devisive issue acts as a dangerious devide for our country. I'm fearful of Americans who are willing to fight with fellow Americans for the chance to change the concept of our government.

DrBill:

A continuation:

"Of course this is not what modern secularists mean when THEY talk about separation of church and state. They want to remove all religious values from the public square.

That is not me, and I could easily call myself a secularist. Yet I am deeply spiritually centered and believe that a life devoid of God is a relatively worthless thing. It is one reason that this debate is important to me. I DO believe that religion should be kept out of government, but not out of the public square. I am disgusted by some of the tactics of the religious right, hell bent (!) to enact religiously derived laws and to ensconce judges and lawyers and politicians into government. The unholy alliance of radical fundamentalism and the neo-con war machine, coupled with liberal monetary policy and government open for world change business signs have brought about a form of end times. End of Americas moral authority times. End of balanced budget times. End of the American Dream times. End of what could have been movement toward world peace.
We are in a deficit and it was one brought about by the morality of the conservative right that you are supporting, if you look.
So I am a secularist that has reason to keep religion out of politics. Jackson was right on that end, and Jefferson. Absolute line in the sand regarding church/state partnering.

Religions, those institutions devoted to God, cannot even find peace and prosperity between themselves. Don't trust them with the reins of government. Support them plying their trade inside the sanctity of their church, where they have plenty of security and rights.

DrBill:

Fine post and good job. Good arguments. I don't agree altogether, but few do. In saying that serious members of the religious right agree with separation of church and state is a huge stretch, done so presuming a difference between "church" and state and "religion" and politics. There is effectively no difference. You venture into wordgames and faulty rationalizations to support your justifications for church involvement in politics while attempting to remain clean. It is dishonest. It would be more truthful to say that you feel that your church has a right to manipulate politics and you intend to continue to do so.
Some of your evangelical right wingers have more honesty, though perhaps more outright vile intentions. They faithfully believe that they are preparing for America to change to a theocracy when Jesus finally shows up to claim his rightful Throne. Which of course here in America. They are manipulating the political system to make for an easier transition when the King comes.
Traitorous, perhaps, but honest.
You play with words so that you can say "I believe in separation of church and state", while looking to marry the two with the church as silent partner.
That said, your dialogue on people voting their morals and laws enacted that limit freedoms of some for the moral code of others is valid and true. People do, and should, vote their values and morals. Many people get those values from religion, true, but many also get them from all the other sources of descent humanity. Values can be found, and are found, everywhere. In humanity.
The argument that religion is the origin of 'morality' would be incorrect, as 'right' morality could be found in humanity certainly prior to Abrahamic religions. And the idea that morality comes from God, ( God made man in His own Image), is convenient and I like it, but doesn't have yet a ton of support, (as the existance of God to this point is theoretical).
I have to believe that humans innately have right and wrong values inherent.

dotherightthing:

"I bet you are smart enough to draw a modern Democratic Party parallel to this abomination, but I also bet you will immediately dismiss it from your consciousness as "ridiculous" because your self-preservation in your current socio-economic and political situations depends upon it."

I assume you are alluding once more to abortion. There is no parallel to these two at all. Please don't continue to bring abortion up in every thread. There are other discussions. And single issue litmus tests did not work, so perhaps it is valueable to compartmentalize and discuss what is on topic.
By continued insistance on abortion rants I get numb to listening to the issue, and bored. That may not be PC but it is true.

"Christian party in politics." We have one, we call them republicans.

Yeah, well God has wiped out people en masse for quite some time - but he isn't exactly demonized for it.

We all have moral grounds for what we believe. We might believe in God, Satan or magical mushrooms. The point of the separation of church and state is that when you bring up an idea to be a rule of the state, you need to have a secular basis for it. In the abortion issue, for instance, you can not say that God said or, leaving out God, that life begin at conception. You need to talk about the basic rules for government and the consequences if this were accepted or not. You must think of the lives of people. the things that happen. You can not think about the moral judgments we will have made of them.

DRBILL21 : "Actually I don't know any serious member of the so-called religious right that would disagree with President Jackson as far as it goes, just in case you were implying that they would."

Not to get too far into the argument clinic, but it's very hard for me to imagine a "serious member of the so-called religious right." As far as I can tell, they're all demagogic clowns À la Elmer Gantry.

In any case, the notion of deity held by the founding fathers is very different than that of the current crop of evangelicals. The god worshiped by the crew emerging from the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" and leading to our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was very Apollonian and cut off from human affairs. All this pleading, demanding and beseeching of the evangelicals of the Religious Right—particularly psycho Dominionists like Sarah of the Frozen Tundra—would be viewed askance by the likes of Jefferson and Franklin [who was a world class weirdo and Occultist anyway.]

DRBILL21 :"Separation of church and state exists primarily for the benefit of the church, not the state. The state owns all the cards... it controls the army and it can impose taxes.... what can a church do?"

See "European History, 900a.d.—1945a.d." Come On! Get Real!

Catholic Church/Protestant Church, wars, wars, wars!!! Don't pretend for a second that Churches haven't controlled governments. You're smarter than that, I know you are.

HARVEYH5: You may find the following interesting:

The Conversion of Andrew Jackson

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady1.html

Hey if you obtain value from the Bible for some of it's moral tales, like Aesop's Fables, alright then. Doesn't sound though like Andrew Jackson took as the word of God.

Actually I don't know any serious member of the so-called religious right that would disagree with President Jackson as far as it goes, just in case you were implying that they would.

The problem occurs in what people today mean by "separation of church and state" and what Jackson (and early Americans) likely meant.

The religious right support separation of church and state for the very reason Jackson suggested... it tends to corrupt the church... which is why the church must very carefully discern the best way to influence society so as not to sully itself.

However, and this is a big however, separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of religion and politics. It doesn't mean that because it CAN'T mean that. If one's religion has no relevance to civil matters (which is what politics concerns itself with), then it is a rather pitiful religion.

Separation of church and state exists primarily for the benefit of the church, not the state. The state owns all the cards... it controls the army and it can impose taxes.... what can a church do? It is the church that is protected so it can then be free to do its job influencing society. In effect, the church plays the role of "internal affairs" keeping the govt honest.

The church also provides instruction and guidance to its parishioners on matters of doctrine and the consequent moral values that flow from that. These moral values are then brought into the world and influence the culture both by direct good works and through working for justice and order via the democratic process.

The fact is that almost ALL laws are the result of a democratic majority imposing their moral views on everyone else. Whether the issue is slavery or child labor or prohibition or abortion or gay marriage or domestic violence or workplace discrimination, in EVERY case you are limiting someone else's "freedom" in the name of SOMEONE'S moral values and in almost all cases, those moral values are rooted in religious assumptions.

The church would not be the church if it did not encourage and even admonish its followers that they have a duty to bring justice and moral order to the world.

Of course this is not what modern secularists mean when THEY talk about separation of church and state. They want to remove all religious values from the public square. If it was up to them, there would be a sign at the polling place saying "leave your religion at the door." Of course the result would be that only secular values (rooted in their secular assumptions) would be permitted as the basis for any laws. To them Separation of Church and State means to "wall off" churches onto their little reservations where people can visit occasionally but then leave their religion there when they return to the "real" world.

Jackson got it right. Religion holds an essential role in government, but no church can claim to be the sole representative of religion. You will note that churches basically do not get along with other churches or, in fact, with other opinions about religion. If you let a church dominate government, it will dominate the state, just like it dominates its congregation.

Dotherightthing:

Ah, nothing like a little fascist hate speech to start the morning. Apparently, you wouldn't know the right thing if it kicked you in the face.

As a Catholic, the last election was like getting drilled on a raw nerve. Our Priest, from the pulpit, even equated how we voted to "our eternal salvation" with the abortion issue being the only one that mattered. A few of the outspoken Bishops echoed this. I love my Church but inspite of the tragedy of abortion, politics is not the Church's game. It only undermines her moral and spiritual authority and allows weaker political candidates to use religion as a weapon.

Witnessing an attempt to intervene in a national election from the pulpit was a chilling reminder that the wisdom of the founding fathers should not be forgotten.

Ah, yes, Andrew Jackson was a great one to separate church from state. It's very apt that Mr. Meacham ask us to follow the example of this president, whose policies parallel those of today's Democrats well beyond the church/state issue. For political expediency, Jackson denied en masse the personhood of every member of the Cherokee Nation in the Carolinas and dispossessed thousands of them of their lands. He then used the U.S. Army to force-march them in their thousands along the "Trail of Tears" to Oklahoma, during which death-march many of them died. I bet you are smart enough to draw a modern Democratic Party parallel to this abomination, but I also bet you will immediately dismiss it from your consciousness as "ridiculous" because your self-preservation in your current socio-economic and political situations depends upon it.

All of the happenings of today, started because of one man's vision, Ronald Reagan. He started a faction of the Grand Orgy Party, to court the White,
Southern, Evangelical voters, who disaffected with the Democratic Party were looking for someone who spoke to their needs and wants in this country.
This courting of that bloc of voters, has drastically changed the shape of American politics,
now more than ever, we are faced with a neo-conservative split within the ranks of the Republican Party. This split, has caused many of the heartaches that we are now facing, economic disaster, because of the laissez-faire economic policy that has become the hallmark of the neo-conservative wing of the wing nuts of the GOP.
This is not the party of William F. Buckley Jr., nor is it the party of Barry Goldwater, former senator from Arizona. Even John Dean, former White House counsel to Richard M. Nixon, has disavowed the neo-conservative philosophy and declared that, "the Republican Party of today, is dangerous to democracy and the republic!"
How low the GOP has fallen, they are now so myopic, that they cannot see the forest for the trees. They cannot recognize that the selling of their collective souls for the Far Right Wing Nut Christian vote has damaged their party to such an extent that they will not hold sway much longer if they do not disavow that part of their party.
Andrew Jackson, was correct, in that religion is anathema to politics, mixing the two, to sway votes one way or another, is dangerous to the fair and ethical governance of our country.
Should we ever regain the true Republican party, the tolerant and ethical way of thinking that I grew up having knowledge of, it will be a miracle. For no one today, sees the damage done, by the Far Right as much as the Centrists have done to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Not sure the Creeks, Cherokees, and the other American Indian tribes he virtually wiped out with deceit and dislocation would agree with you on this one. He orchestrated a great mass murder of American Indians. Not sure God would "lionize" that.

Nice article, Jon. Andrew Jackson could serve as a good example in modern times. I especially liked the idea that was able to consider separation of Church and State important while simultaneously having high respect and regard for the religious. Far too many of the separation of Church and State proponents who write here have scornful, dismissive and intolerant attitudes toward religion and religious people. It makes these boards a generally negative place.