Way to go Bill

[tso-d_chris 0]

As long ass we are copying and pasting...

Quote

***Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY

Quote

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

Quote

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Quote

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

Quote

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823

Quote

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Quote

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."

From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Quote

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.

Speaking of the independence of the first 13 States, H.G. Wells in his Outline of History, says:

"It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.'"

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Source

Quote

***I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Quote

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

--Jefferson

Quote

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

--Jefferson

Quote

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

--John Adams

Quote

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty

--Thomas Paine

Quote

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

--James Madison

Quote

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

--MadisonSource

As I said, the Founding Fathers were largely non-Christian.

[ReBirth 0]

Hmmm....looks to me from your list that they're pretty even handedly opposed to legislation. I consider that a good thing in the "land of the free". But to each his own.

The ACLU also defended the KKK in court...pro bono. I think it's great that there are people who will defend anyone and everyone from the government, no matter who they are. If you'd prefer to bend over for the winners of a popularity contest (elected officials) you don't need to enlist their help.

[Nightingale 0]

Doesn't the ACLU do pretty much everything pro-bono? They're a non-profit.

The ACLU often takes on extreme cases, because extreme cases help clarify law. They don't take a case because they feel sorry for a single person or want to help one person. They take on cases that they feel will enable the courts to set a legal precedent. A case of a nobody-high-school-student wanting to stand on the corner with a rude sign has nowhere near the impact of a case about NAMBLA. NAMBLA's speech is disgusting to most people, but, under the first amendment, they have a right to their opinions and ideas, provided they don't act on them.

The problem with stopping groups like NAMBLA and the KKK is that by doing that, we're saying that it's okay to sensor speech and ideas we disagree with. Then, it becomes a question of where to draw the line, and once that line starts moving from "incites violence" further in to "morally reprehensible" to "disgusting" to "I don't like that." we have a problem.

By protecting the free speech of the KKK and MANBLA, the ACLU is also protecting your right to stand up and say you disagree with their speech. It goes both ways. If you want to be able to speak freely, you have to allow others to do the same, no matter how much you may disagree.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

"Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers."

Someone should inform the AFA that Thomas Jefferson was an athiest and that the rest were not that religous themselves. What they did believe, however, is that everyone has the right to believe as they wish and say what they want, as long as they are not harming anyone, without persecution. It is the ACLU whom are protecting the rights of such groups as the AFA. A bit ironic to say the least as the ACLU is one of the groups they oppose the most.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,085]

>They have a manual on how to seduce little boys.

Right, and bible thumping anti-abortion sites have suggestions on how to kill doctors and attack clinics. Check out armyofgod.com. Some even provide home addresses for assassins, and put up testimonials to said assassins. Shall we silence anti-abortion sites to protect doctors?

[billvon 3,085]

>Like these quotes from our founding fathers:

I recommend the book "The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America" by Frank Lambert. An excellent overview of the genesis and development of religion in America, and how the founding fathers saw its place in government. What comes through loud and clear is that the founding fathers wanted a 'free market' of religion, with no one religion having any secular place in goverment.

The idea that our founding fathers wanted "a culture based on Biblical truth" is pretty far from reality. They were smart enough to realize that such a culture was impossible; even in their time, they had serious divisions even within the christians in the US on how to live their lives. And each side of the battle was positive that they lived according to the rules of the Bible, and were never going to back down. The people who wrote the constitution were smart enough to steer well clear of such potentially divisive issues when they set up our government. Their foresight is why we have the degree of religious freedom we have today.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>They have a manual on how to seduce little boys.

Right, and bible thumping anti-abortion sites have suggestions on how to kill doctors and attack clinics. Check out armyofgod.com. Some even provide home addresses for assassins, and put up testimonials to said assassins. Shall we silence anti-abortion sites to protect doctors?

Bill, you continuously use this tactic. To dispute one person's statement, you always bring up an example from the opposite extreme to somehow justify the original extreme.

Let's identify where evil is and not make excuses for it. The bible thumping anti-abortionists who give instructions as to how to assasinate abortion doctors are just as evil as the NAMBLA group giving instruction on how to seduce little boys. Both groups are giving aid to those who wish to commit crimes. In fact they are promoting and perpetuating them.

Why is there a defense for heinous behavior? Let's call it all what it is...pure evil. Instead of trying to defend it, we should be working toward annihilating it.

_________________________________________
Chris

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Let's apply the same logic to the authors of that letter, the American Family Association.

The American Family Association supports:
-Gay discrimination
-Censorship
-Homophobia
-Religious tests for public office
-Altering the original US constitution to push their message

The American Family Association opposes:
-Free speech
-Women's rights
-Equal rights for all citizens
-Patient's rights
-Cosmopolitan magazine (and other 'glossy magazines')

Can't keep the topic on the ACLU?
Bring up other organizations is a good defense of the anti-american, morals destroying bullshit of the ACLU?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't watch O'Reilly very often because he's been so off point so often in the past, but in this case he's right on the money for the most part. The ACLU is a radical organization and a disgrace to its charter.

O'Reilly badly misses the point, and so do you. The ACLU isn't about popularity, or bringing out the will of the majority. It's solely about civil liberties and the extreme application of the slippery slope principle. They did decide to white out the 2nd Amendment for some odd reason, but it's crazy to point out that they're a radical group. They've fought for fringe groups all across the political spectrum.

"The will of the majority...."

That is all good and fine but, the constitution provides for the will of the majority to change things. It is called an amendment. It is purposfully made difficult to make sure the change is properly vetted.

The ACLU chooses to used activist minded judges to impose what they think to be correct. When that happens (and is allowed to happen) the majority or the people loose power That is the point here......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Can't keep the topic on the ACLU?
Bring up other organizations is a good defense of the anti-american, morals destroying bullshit of the ACLU?

How is defending civil liberties anti-American?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Let's identify where evil is and not make excuses for it. The bible thumping anti-abortionists who give instructions as to how to assasinate abortion doctors are just as evil as the NAMBLA group giving instruction on how to seduce little boys. Both groups are giving aid to those who wish to commit crimes. In fact they are promoting and perpetuating them

See this post for an answer to your question.

Many Americans take our civil rights very seriously, and find it far better to allow people that we disagree with the opportunity to speak.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Can't keep the topic on the ACLU?
Bring up other organizations is a good defense of the anti-american, morals destroying bullshit of the ACLU?

How is defending civil liberties anti-American?

Not so much as what they deffend but how they effect change. (don't get me wrong, I do not agree with them on many points. On some I do)
Many, but not all, of the changes they are working for should require legislative or constitutional efforts.

They however, choose to find sympathetic judges (that they know to be activists) to effect thier changes. That, is dangerous and anti-american, in my opinion.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Activist judges???

holy fuck, Americans are so used to being forcefed opinions that even one as odious as this one actually sunk into its collective mind.

You guys make me laugh.

Here's why the ACLU are doing their job:

They uphold the rights of all people in accordance with the laws of the land.

Here's why the AFA are assholes:

They want to create meta-laws based on religious intolerance.

NAMBLA, KKK are evil fuckheads, yet according to US law they are allowed to hold their own beliefs and are allowed to publicly state them.

The ACLU performs a job: which is to make the judicial system adhere to its own rules rather than weaselly end runs that violate peoples rights as citizens.

I realize that most moral christians have an issue with a humans right to do as they wish under the letter of the law rather than under the various interpretations of 'gods' laws, but there's a very large group of people in this country who believe in the US but not in the Christian God.

If you really want to live in a theocracy go live in the middle east and get the fuck out of the 'land of the free'. In fact I'll pay any of you pansy God-lovers to go live in some theocratic state where the invisible man can set the rules based on the whims of some crazed religious leader and which way he read one of its many contradictory passages this morning.

OOO look, I can do that whole 'love it or leave it' shit too!

My god, I felt my IQ drop 100 points. God Bless America y'all!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

They however, choose to find sympathetic judges (that they know to be activists) to effect thier changes. That, is dangerous and anti-american, in my opinion.

They get to choose their judges? Wow.

For Great Deals on Gear

[AlexCrowley 0]

I heard that the ACLU will be defending the US judicial system for it's right to choose it's own judges rather than the current system of corrupt ACLU funded ACTIVIST!!!! LEFTY !!!!!!! FUCKHEAD!!!!! judges, which have so obviously been the norm of late.


Todays word of the day is obviously: fuckhead.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

They however, choose to find sympathetic judges (that they know to be activists) to effect thier changes. That, is dangerous and anti-american, in my opinion.

They get to choose their judges? Wow.

Sure, they pick where they file the cases based on the judges in that area and the record there.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Activist judges???

holy fuck, Americans are so used to being forcefed opinions that even one as odious as this one actually sunk into its collective mind.

You guys make me laugh.

Here's why the ACLU are doing their job:

They uphold the rights of all people in accordance with the laws of the land.

Here's why the AFA are assholes:

They want to create meta-laws based on religious intolerance.

NAMBLA, KKK are evil fuckheads, yet according to US law they are allowed to hold their own beliefs and are allowed to publicly state them.

The ACLU performs a job: which is to make the judicial system adhere to its own rules rather than weaselly end runs that violate peoples rights as citizens.

I realize that most moral christians have an issue with a humans right to do as they wish under the letter of the law rather than under the various interpretations of 'gods' laws, but there's a very large group of people in this country who believe in the US but not in the Christian God.

If you really want to live in a theocracy go live in the middle east and get the fuck out of the 'land of the free'. In fact I'll pay any of you pansy God-lovers to go live in some theocratic state where the invisible man can set the rules based on the whims of some crazed religious leader and which way he read one of its many contradictory passages this morning.

OOO look, I can do that whole 'love it or leave it' shit too!

My god, I felt my IQ drop 100 points. God Bless America y'all!

Where the hell did this come from?

Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Sure, they pick where they file the cases based on the judges in that area and the record there.

And all this time I thought they filed cases based on the location of the violation of civil liberties.

For Great Deals on Gear

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Sure, they pick where they file the cases based on the judges in that area and the record there.

And all this time I thought they filed cases based on the location of the violation of civil liberties.

Look, I am not talking absolutes here. In some cases where the filling is done has to be done where it is because of the "infaction" When they go after federal status they do pick and choose.

No of this invalidates my point of how change is supposed to be effected however.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

One of the rationales behind what some refer to as judge created law is that it is not actually a new law, but merely a proper enunciation of what the law has always been.

(lets make up a law to make sure this remains hypothetical)

Say in one state it has been illegal for red heads to speak at the weekend. This has been the rule for the last century or so and there are many instances of people being prosecuted for it. It's established law.

This would obviously be against their right to freedom of speech however and one day someone takes the state to Court over the point.

Now some may say hang on – there's nothing in the constitution which protects red heads specifically. This requires a new law to protect them, or maybe an amendment to the constitution. Some would say that if the ''Activist Judge'' handed down a ruling that red heads must indeed be afforded the right of free speech just like everyone else then they are ''making new law'' and that they are over stepping the boundaries of the judiciary, eroding the constitutional importance of the separation of powers etc.

However what is really happening is the Judge is simply saying that from the date of the constitution, the law against red heads speaking on the weekend has been illegal. As such any laws or activities countermanding that have been illegal. His judgment is not ''new law'', but old law properly stated. All previous laws and judgments have been mistakes and that this is actually the way it always was – just everybody failed to see it.

Sometimes what is actually happening when the aggrieved party stands up and shouts about activist judges making new law, is that the judge is upholding a very old law and removing the relatively new laws which have been illegally encroached upon it.

They are not saying ''from now on read heads must also be afforded protected freedom of speech'' they are saying ''redheads have always have protected freedom of speech, just no one has realized until now''. A subtle but important difference.

Sometimes anyway... sometimes I'm sure there are instances where they've just plain made shit up. There are always people who get things wrong or there wouldn't be a need for courts in the first place.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of

I'll convert them one at a time.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of

I think he has a better grasp on our system than do many Americans.

For Great Deals on Gear

[rushmc 23]

Quote

One of the rationales behind what some refer to as judge created law is that it is not actually a new law, but merely a proper enunciation of what the law has always been.

(lets make up a law to make sure this remains hypothetical)

Say in one state it has been illegal for red heads to speak at the weekend. This has been the rule for the last century or so and there are many instances of people being prosecuted for it. It's established law.

This would obviously be against their right to freedom of speech however and one day someone takes the state to Court over the point.

Now some may say hang on – there's nothing in the constitution which protects red heads specifically. This requires a new law to protect them, or maybe an amendment to the constitution. Some would say that if the ''Activist Judge'' handed down a ruling that red heads must indeed be afforded the right of free speech just like everyone else then they are ''making new law'' and that they are over stepping the boundaries of the judiciary, eroding the constitutional importance of the separation of powers etc.

However what is really happening is the Judge is simply saying that from the date of the constitution, the law against red heads speaking on the weekend has been illegal. As such any laws or activities countermanding that have been illegal. His judgment is not ''new law'', but old law properly stated. All previous laws and judgments have been mistakes and that this is actually the way it always was – just everybody failed to see it.

Sometimes what is actually happening when the aggrieved party stands up and shouts about activist judges making new law, is that the judge is upholding a very old law and removing the relatively new laws which have been illegally encroached upon it.

They are not saying ''from now on read heads must also be afforded protected freedom of speech'' they are saying ''redheads have always have protected freedom of speech, just no one has realized until now''. A subtle but important difference.

Sometimes anyway... sometimes I'm sure there are instances where they've just plain made shit up. There are always people who get things wrong or there wouldn't be a need for courts in the first place.

Look, I do not have time to read your entire post but, I have no problem with judges working out what a law or further defining a right however, when a right a said to exist (Roe v Wade for example and I do not want to debate Roe v Wade) we are moving in a dangerous direction. The seperation of church and state has been made into something it is not!

These types of changes have a mechanisim in the constitution. Activists judges are NOT working within the structure of the constition. Including the current Supreem Court.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

One of the rationales behind what some refer to as judge created law is that it is not actually a new law, but merely a proper enunciation of what the law has always been. . .

Very well said.

For Great Deals on Gear

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Seems like you have a hatred of something you obviously (at least to me) have no concept of

I think he has a better grasp on our system than do many Americans.

Dam, thanks for clearing that up for me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln