The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
Christianity in American Education

"Religion [and] morality [are] necessary for good government
and the happiness of mankind"

Abstract
OF THE ARTICLE THAT WILL SOON APPEAR HERE

Here's what it says:

• The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is considered part of America's "Organic Law."
• It requires Christianity to be taught by the newly-admitted states in their schools.
• Language from the Ordinance is found in state constitutions for 100 years

Until you send us this article, readers of this page will have to be content with the following dialogue on American OnLine's "Separation of Church and State" Discussion Board.

This is Part 2. Part 1 is here.

1. Article 3 of the NWordinance requires religion in schools
2. Article 1 does not contradict Article 3
3. "Religion" means "Christianity"
4. In this Christian nation, non-Christian religions have only limited freedom
5. Myths about the Northwest Ordinance
6. Why Religion is Necessary for Good Education
7. Why the Ordinance Encourages Religion
8. Federal Intervention in Education
9. Article 1 STILL does not contradict Article 3
10. Is Religion "Psychologically Harmful" to students?
11. The Importance of the NWOrdinance to Education
12. Justice Douglas on the NWOrdinance

>But here's how it REALLY reads: "Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge,
>being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
>the means of education shall forever be encouraged. 

Well fancy THAT! It's not enough that our organic law says that religion is necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind. But WHERE is religion to be advanced and inculcated? IN SCHOOLS!! The very place the Soopreme Court has been so anxious to rid of all Christian values! Gee, Ed -- thanks for pointing out that our nation's fundamental law requires SCHOOLS to teach RELIGION AND MORALITY!!!

>So instead of endorsing religion, Congress endorsed education.

False. Congress CLEARLY endorses religion. It declares religion to be NECESSARY to good government and the happiness of mankind. What greater "endorsement" could one imagine?  What words should Congress have used if they wanted to endorse religion???

>There is a difference there, and one wonders why Kevin felt compelled to try
>to change the meaning of what the founders had to say.

I was setting a trap. Thanks for getting snagged.

> (Dont' take my word for it -- go read it for yourself:   
> The Avalon Project : Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 )

And don't forget to listen to legal scholars who know more than Ed does about what our organic law means, and sets it firmly in the context of American history. See footnote 9 of Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which removed prayer from public schools. He declares:

Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in Article III that Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

The "Separation of church and state" is a myth.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

>Kevin never cites the religious freedom part of the Northwest Ordinance:

>Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall
>ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments,
>in the said territory. <<<

Which means you can immerse or sprinkle.
You can transubstantiate or consubstantiate.
You can prelate or presbyter.
All these are permitted in a Christian nation.
Freedom of religion means freedom for all denominations of Christians. But just try to commit polygamy or human sacrifice, and you'll be thrown in the hoosegow. Pagan religions are given freedom only insofar as their "demeanor" is "peaceable and orderly" by Christian standards.

Just ask the Mormons.

>
>THAT is what the Northwest Ordinance says about religious liberty.
>
>How could Kevin overlook that?
>
>Ed

"Religious liberty" is fine as long as you're a legitimate religion.
But cannibalism has never been granted "religious liberty" in a Christian nation like America because it is not a legitimate religion. This is a Christian nation and our legal code is based on Christian morality.

And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes [on the basis of "religious liberty"] would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-43 (1890)

In a Christian nation, "religious liberty" is defined by the standards of the true religion.

How could Ed overlook this?

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Intentional distortion?
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 5/20/00

In article <20000520050706.15807.00000360@ng-cq1.aol.com>, jcsam50@aol.com (JCSAM50) writes:

>Gee, color me confused.  I've read the excerpts & the whole quote, & I've yet
>to find the word "Christian" there.  As a matter of fact, since the Indian
>religions are quite different from Christianity, and since the Indians were
>being discussed, it seems to me that either they were talking about Indian
>religions (notice the plural) or all religions.  You, Kevin, keep inserting
>the word Christian, which
>is clearly not found there - even by you.

You can't be serious! Everyone knows that the "religion" being talked about in America in 1787 is Christianity! You're engaging in what is called "sophism."

General Washington issued the following orders to his troops during the Revolutionary War:

The commander-in-chief directs that divine service be performed every Sunday at eleven o'clock in those brigades [in] which there are chaplains; those which have none [are] to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set an example to their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. 
To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential goodness which we have experienced, and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.
   —George Washington, General Orders. Fitzpatrick 11:342. (1778.)

Listen to the words of John Hancock, which are quite similar to the words of the Northwest Ordinance:

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [N]ot only the freedom but the very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion.
Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page. 
See also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book    
(Boston: Lee & Shepherd, 1898), p. 269.   

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.   
Letter to John Adams, 1790, who wrote back: "You and I agree."   
Four Letters: Being an Interesting Correspondence Between Those Eminently Distinguished Characters, John Adams, Late President of the United States; and Samuel Adams, Late Governor of Massachusetts.  On the Important Subject of Government, (Boston: Adams and Rhoades, 1802) pp. 9-10

James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution    
   [P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of   
   the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they   
   impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise,   
   the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction   
   of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and   
   to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity,   
   stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase   
   penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.   
   Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot   
   pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet   
   conscience.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society   
   Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921),   
   p. 14.

Charles Carroll
Signer of the Constitution    
   Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time;   
   they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion   
   whose morality is so sublime and pure . . . are undermining   
   the solid foundation of morals, the best security for   
   the duration of free governments.   
   Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James   
   McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475.   
   In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Thomas Jefferson
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States    
   The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of   
   mankind.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.   
   I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus   
   as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.   
   Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,   
   Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial   
   Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on   
   April 19, 1803.

Noah Webster
Founding Educator    
   The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social   
   conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality   
   and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles   
   and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all   
   our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have   
   truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which   
   men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery   
   and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts   
   contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious   
   and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.   
   Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the   
   Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53,   
   56.

Jedediah Morse
Patriot and "Father of American Geography"    
   To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil   
   freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now   
   enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown,   
   our present republican forms of government, and all blessings   
   which flow from them, must fall with them.   
   Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April   
   25, 1799.

William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania    
   [I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper,   
   where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as   
   to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.   
  Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by   
   William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.   
  
Pennsylvania Supreme Court    
   No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity   
   is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.   
   Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth;   
   11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence    
   The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid   
   in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue   
   there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all   
   republican governments.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)   
   
   We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means   
   of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government,   
   that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of   
   Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book,   
   above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect   
   for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the   
   soul of republicanism.   
   Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical    
   (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp.   
   93-94.   

   By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings   
   upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the   
   human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of   
   religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible]   
   must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive   
   the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell   
   shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]   
   Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield,   
   editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to   
   John Adams, January 23, 1807.

Benjamin Franklin
   History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity   
   of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion   
   above all others, ancient or modern.   
   Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749, p.22

Justice Rehnquist writes:   
   
   Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during   
   much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published   
   by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution   
   that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the   
   Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed   
   the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:   
   
      "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the     
      amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the      
      general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity    
      ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not   
      incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom   
      of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it   
      a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have   
      created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.   
   
      . . . . .   
   
     "The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance,   
     much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by   
     prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects,   
     and to prevent any national ecclesiastical   
     establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage   
     of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious   
     persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion   
     of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been   
     trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." 

WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38, 105 (1985) In note 5, he added:   

   From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust   
   endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United   
   Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e. g.,   
   ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed   
   periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington,   
   Adams, and Jefferson.   
   Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians.   
   In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage   
   for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See   
   1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell   
   the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support   
   of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ."   
   4 Stat. 618-619. WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38, 104

Which brings us to the utterly preposterous assertion that the Northwest Ordinance is talking about the Indian religions. When the Delaware Indians came to George Washington and asked for help in becoming civilized, Washington mentioned the superiority of America's national religion over the Indian religions:   

   You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all,   
   the religion of Jesus Christ. . . .  Congress will do everything they can   
   to assist you in this wise intention.   
   The Writings of GeoWashington, Jared Sparks, ed., (Boston: Ferdinand   
   Andrews, 1838) XV:55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs,   
   May 12, 1779.

Numerous founding charters made mention of the fact that a basic driving force in the settlement of North America was the conversion of the Indians to Christianity. Some of those charters are found here. 

Jefferson as President appropriated money to evangelize the Indians. Again, Rehnquist notes,   

   As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century,   
   Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of   
   sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical   
   of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which   
   provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest   
   and church. It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education   
   for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided   
   thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools.   
   See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp,   
   210 U.S. 50, 77-79 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under   
   the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation   
   of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of   
   the notion found in Everson that "no  tax in any amount" may be   
   levied for religious activities in any form.  330 U.S., at 15-16. 
   WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38, 104

When the Founding Fathers spoke of the "true religion" they were clearly and undoubtedly referrring to Christianity, and anyone who knows the least about American history knows this to be true.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
--------------------------------------------- 

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

To say that America is not a Christian nation is not only unwarranted, it is either delusional or deceitful.

>We don't. We live in a country deliberately designed to
>allow for all religions to be practiced, within a frame work of not harming
>others.

The "framework" in which other religions are allowed to practice is Christianity. Our legal system is based on Christianity.

Here in the religious-freedom clause of the First Amendment, then, was
no philosophe's Deistical declaration, and no Encyclopedist's
rationalistic denunciation of Christianity. What the few words of the
clause intended to convey was the essence of the article on religion
drafted by George Mason for the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776,
as modified then by Madison: "That Religion or the duty we owe to our
Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of
reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are
equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates
of conscience, unpunished, and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless
the preservation of equal liberty and the existence of the State are
manifestly endangered. And that it is the mutual duty of all, to
practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other."
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.436

The men who founded this nation derived their laws from the Bible,
not from other religions.

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral
and religious code. . . laws essential to the existence of men in society
and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever
professed any code of laws. Vain indeed would be the search among
the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete, and
so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.
John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on
the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850) 34.

John Adams said that anyone who works against the establishment of the Ten Commandments in society is working against freedom and civilization:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not
commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts
in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
John Adams: A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the
United States of America (Phila: Wm Young, 1797) III:217, from
"The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth Examined," Letter VI.

> So, human sacrifice is not tolerated because the sacrifced person has no
>choice in the matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers never spoke in such terms. Human sacrifice is not permitted in America because it is against the law of Nature and of Nature's God, and this is a Christian nation.

>
> However, bigamy & polygamy are not prosecuted until & unless one person
>complains.

This is wishful thinking, not history. Read the cases. Polygamists were prosecuted even though none of the parties complained. It is offensive to Christian morals.

>In fact, if you get married by a religious person who agrees not
>to register the marriage with civil authorities, you are considered married
>within that religion, but not by the government.

Civil magistrates in Christian nations will legally recognize only marriages within the parameters of Christian morality. (Or at least this has always been the case. As Christians become more self-absorbed and escapist, they will permit homosexual "marriages," "marriages" of adults and children, or "marriages" with animals.

>Years ago, many senior
>citizens did just that, so they wouldn't lose Social Security benefits. And,
>the converse holds true as well - you can be married by a JP & not have your
>church recognize it as a marriage. Ask all Catholics who didn't get
>annulments. Ask all the Jews who didn't get gets. So, apparently this
>country is based on civil law, as opposed to religious law.

Non sequitur. If I want to marry my mother the government will not allow it, because that would be unChristian. America is not based on "church law" but rather on generic Christian law. America's laws on marriage are self-consciously based on the 7th Commandment.

>
>Also, you mention "defined by the standards of the true religion". Can you
>please show me where in any of our government documents the "true religion"
>is specified?

It is never specified down to the level of "true denomination" or "true church."
But it is clear that when the Founding Fathers spoke of "true religion" they were speaking of Christianity. Any honest seeker for truth, acquainted with the writings of the Founders, will admit this.

The original Virginia Charter read in part:

'We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires
for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence
of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in
propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in
Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship
of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those
parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO,
by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their
humble and well-intended Desires.'

Madison's language in his Memorial and Remonstrance was taken from the original Virginia Charter:

12. Because, the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light
of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift,
ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare
the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still
remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the
former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it
at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation)
from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the
nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey
it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the
victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity
would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments
of error.

Even today, the Virginia Constitution still speaks of the basic human obligation to follow "Christian forebearance."

>Not writings by some of the signers of the Declaration of
>Independence or Constitution. We all know that not all of us agree on
>everything. I want to see it in documents adopted by this country to govern
>all of us.

No serious historian or legal scholar will interpret ANY document apart from its context. In conflicts between false religions and the true religion, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that this is a Christian nation.

>
>To each of us, our religion is the "true one", simply by definition. If we
>found it to be false, we wouldn't be members of that religion.

This is not true. Many people are members of religions that they know are false religions. The Bible says we all know the true God (Romans 1:18ff.). The Bible says that when the Canaanites sacrificed their children on the altars of Baal, they were rebelling against the true God, and they knew it. (Josh 2:9-11)

>So, while I
>have seen mention of respecting differences of opinion in the Constitution &
>other documents, including the Bible, can you please tell me why your
>particular form of Christianity cannot seem to follow that?
>
>Caryle

Nobody follows this. Nobody will permit their neighbor to sacrifice his daughter on an altar in his front yard. Anyone who does is a lowlife. No matter how "sincere" your neighbor is in his "religion," you will rescue his daughter before his knife digs out her beating heart.

Christianity brings civilization. False religions bring darkness and tyranny. Every single person who signed the Constitution believed this.
Because our nation no longer believes this, we are falling into darkness and tyranny again.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: The Northwest Ordinance
From: KEVIN4VFT
To: Separation of Church & State
Date: 6/11/00

In his concurring opinion in the Engel case (the 1962 case which removed voluntary prayer from public schools), Justice Douglas confessed:

   Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. 
   The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided 
   in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to 
   good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
   means of education shall forever be encouraged."

In article <20000611052417.24691.00002901@ng-da1.aol.com>, ghstwrtrfx2@aol.com (Ghstwrtrfx2) posts another article from the Separationist's Debater's Handbook which contains a ton of  irrelevant facts and misleading opinions, none of which contradict Justice Douglas' admission.

>During colonial times, schooling was left up to each of the colonies
>individually. With the many different religions and ways of life, schooling
>was difficult to maintain and centralize. The New England Colonies focused on
>compulsory public maintainence (1). They wanted all capable children to
>attend school to be educated to become good citizens. The Middle Colonies
>policies were that of parochial education (2). Schools
>were primarily for educating the children with powerful minds to become
>ministers, priests, or hold good offices. The Southern Colonies, on the other
>hand, didnt really have much in the line of compulsory education because of
>the ruralness of these areas. Most education in the south consisted of
>apprenticeships and the like. 

Marginally interesting, I suppose, but not a denial of Justice Douglas' observation:

   Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. 
   The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided 
   in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to 
   good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
   means of education shall forever be encouraged."

>
>In an effort to consolidate schools and make education mandatory, Congress
>enacted the Land Ordinance of 1785. This ordinance set aside what was known
>as Section Sixteen in every township in the new Western Territory for the
>maintenance of public schools. It also allotted section number 29 for the
>purpose of religion and no more than two townships for a University. The
>separation of church and state was visible by now with the two entities being
>in
>different areas. Public schools were organized to corral the best minds for
>training for public leadership. 

"The separation of church and state was visible by now" ??
What does does this statement mean? That it wasn't visible when the Constitution was written? That it was sort of evolving, and wasn't really intended by the Framers of the Constitution?

>Two years later came the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance provided
>land in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions for settlement. (It
>eventually broke into five states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
>Illinois). Of particular interest is Article 3 of the ordinance, which reads
>in part: 
>
>              Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good 
>              government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
>              means of education shall forever be encouraged.
>
>The point of this document is that education is necessary to become a good
>citizen and to have a strong government. 

This is deliberately misleading. The point is not that EDUCATION (by which the author means "secular education") is necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind." The point is that RELIGION, MORALITY and knowledge are necessary. 
The Founding Fathers (and the rest of America) were agreed that to create good citizens you needed religion and morality.
Alexis de Tocqueville observed this of America:

But it is by the attention it pays to Public Education that the original character of American civilization is at once placed in the clearest light. "It being," says the law, "one chief project of Satan to keep men from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the use of tongues, to the end that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors..." Here follow clauses establishing schools in every township, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superior kind were founded in the same manner in the more populous districts. The municipal authorities were bound to enforce the sending of children to school by their parents; they were empowered to inflict fines upon all who refused compliance; and in case of continued resistance society assumed the place of the parent, took possession of the child, and deprived the father of those natural rights which he used to so bad a purpose. The reader will undoubtedly have remarked the preamble of these enactments: in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol.1, p.40 - p.41.

>Children will be encouraged to go to
>school, however religion is not specifically to be part of the curriculum.

I have no idea what the writer of this article is trying to say by that statement. The Northwest Ordinance clearly says that religion and morality are necessary to good government and the happiness of  mankind, and to ensure good government and happiness, schools will be built to teach religion, morality and knowledge. Nothing in the law even HINTS at removing religion from the curriculum, where it had been since the first Europeans set foot on this continent. De Tocqueville, noting above that religion was the road to knowledge, quoted the first compulsory education law in America, a 1642 law designed to thwart Satan by teaching religion, called "the Old Deluder Satan Act." 

>Schools then began to form everywhere over the next one-hundred plus years.
>Instead of township appointed teachers, they were subsidized to an extent by
>the government, and the rest by state taxes. Schools began teaching more
>that just religion, reading, and spelling. Sciences were part of the new
>curriculum. 

There's nothing "new" here. The word "knowledge" (as the Founders were well aware) is in Latin "scientia," and sciences were clearly in view in the NWOrdinance. Thus it is not true that schools began to teach "more" than religion, but this admits that they WERE teaching religion!

>Thus, the federal government was able to create a public school
>system furnished to all children, especially in the new and ever growing
>West. 
>
>It also should be noted that Jefferson wrote the NW Ordinances, 

No one questions the influence of Jefferson, as no one questions his influence on the Declaration of Independence. But Jefferson was out of step with the rest of the nation. And when Congress adopted the language of Jefferson's land ordinance and his draft of the Declaration of Independence, they were thankful for Jefferson's contribution, but went on to make the drafts appropriate for a Christian nation.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written:

     And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other 
     our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

But Congress amended it to read:

    And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on 
    the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to 
    each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 

Jefferson's views on Education were negated by Congress' subsequent amendment of his earlier draft of the NWOrdinance.

>and as we all
>know Jefferson was in no way in favor of even including religious instruction
>education, as his Bill for the More Diffusion of Knowledge, and his bill Bill
>for Establishing a System of Public Education are testament. 

These bills did not pass. Many of Jefferson' proposals for the University of Virginia were rejected by the more conservative trustees and the Virginia Legislature.

Jefferson was right, of course, that ignorance is the seed-bed of tyranny.
But so is immorality and irreligion, as the Congress which reenacted the NWOrdinance pointed out.

>So it is absurd
>to think he changed his mind in mid-stream...and then back again. Those who
>attempt to misconstrue the NW Ordinances in supporting their view
>of a Christian Nation, obviously have not considered the context, the true
>intent, or the history behind the NW ordinances. 

Neither, apparently, has the writer of the Separationists' Debater's Handbook.

>Once more, the
>accomadationists begin their argument from a platform of ignorance.

Just as Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was modified to fit the needs of a Christian nation, so was the Northwest Ordinance.

Religion and morality were uppermost in the minds of educators from the early 1600's to the time of the Constitution and NWOrdinance and for decades thereafter. The NWOrdinance meets the needs of a nation that believed that religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom (De Tocqueville).

Nothing in this Secularist article on the Northwest Ordinance refutes in any way the overwhelming evidence that education in America was religious. Here is some of the evidence I have posted before.

The New York Supreme Court noted that when the 14th Amendment was passed, "some of the State Constitutions then in force contained provisions forbidding sectarian instruction or the use of public funds for denominational schools, or both, [but] the schools were generally opened in prayer." This fact was not denied by the US Supreme Court. Engle v. Vitale, 18 Misc 2d 659 at 675 (1959).

Many Christians who supported sectarian education (their own sect, of course) accused those who promoted non-sectarian education of being atheistic. 

    [The] Massachusetts phase . . . of the battle . . . required Horace Mann, 
    often referred to as the father of the American public school system, 
    to defend himself against a charge that as Secretary of the State Board 
    of Education, he sought to drive religion from the schools, with the denial, 
    "that I have ever attempted to exclude religious instruction from school, 
    or to exclude the Bible from school." Notwithstanding the strong current 
    of opinion [against "sectarian" education], the history of the times shows 
    that it did not extend to the exclusion of the Bible and prayer from the 
    schools. The conclusion is inevitable that [when the First and Fourteenth 
    Amendments were passed], the "sense of the nation," to revert to Madison's 
    phrase, could not be read as indicating, by ratification [of either Amendment] 
    the exclusion of the Bible or of prayer from the public schools. 
    Engel, 18 Misc 2d at 676-77

Separationists routinely ignore the conflicts between rival denominations of Christians. Secularists continually distort this conflict into one between religion and irreligion, Christianity and atheism. Nobody believed that schools should be secular.

-------------------------------------
Butts & Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1953, pp. 272ff.:

The attempt to build a nonsectarian common school curriculum
In order for the ideal of a universally available, publicly supported, and publicly controlled common school to be at all workable, the teaching of sectarian religion had to be excluded from the classroom. [KC Note: this does not mean excluding all Christianity, just the denominational distinctives:] In their attempts to accomplish this by teaching the common elements of Christianity and the Bible without comment, however, the reformers encountered violent opposition from conservative religious interests and the forces allied with them. The idea that morality and character -- for many the central purposes of education -- could be included in the curriculum apart from the dogma of a sectarian faith was a difficult one for people who had recently lived under religious establishments to accept. Yet the reformers were able, in the space of a half century, to convince a majority of Americans that the plan was practical.

"The development of the nonsectarian curriculum in Massachusetts well represents the movement throughout the Union. Interestingly enough, while the general law of 1789 had enjoined teacher to exert their best endeavors to communicate piety, justice, and other virtues to children, it nowhere mentioned the teaching of religion. Although the popularity of the New England Primer had begun to wane in favor of newer material, the Bible and the Psalter were in wide use, and the law of 1789 probably represented a more general trend replacing earlier Calvinist teachings with a milder conception of Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Far from excluding religion, the law merely required the teaching of Christian principles to a Christian community.

"When the law of 1827 greatly strengthened the town school committees, the question of sectarian feeling in the selection of school books received important attention. In order to prevent undue sectarian interest in this matter, the following clause was inserted in the law: "That said committee shall never direct any school books to be purchased or used, in any of the schools under their superintendence, which are calculated to favor any particular sect or tenet." Once again, rather than excluding Christian morality from the schools, this provision obviously hoped to bar only sectarian doctrines and tenets.

"No particular attention was paid to this provision until the establishment of the Board of Education in 1837 and the appointment of Horace Mann, a Unitarian, as its secretary. When Mann and the board vigorously supported the common elements of Christianity conception, the more conservative religious groups in the state accused him of trying to introduce Unitarianism into the schools. [note: in the early 1800's, Unitarianism looked more like contemporary evangelicalism, but was clearly a departure from Puritan Calvinism.] In 1838, in a controversy over school libraries with Frederick A. Packard of the American Sunday School Union [which published public school textbooks, not just "sunday school" texts --kc], and again in 1844 and 1846, in controversies with Reverends Edward A. Newton and Matthew Hale Smith, respectively, Mann and the board were accused of conducting "godless," immoral schools which bred delinquency and vice. Throughout these continuing struggles, Mann held steadfastly to his position that the common schools were neither irreligious nor nonreligious; they were nonsectarian. If one examines the curriculum of these years, Mann's arguments were entirely borne out in practice, at least to the extent that moral instruction was non-sectarian Protestant in orientation. Very obviously, what his attackers were urging was not that religion, ethics, and morals be taught in the schools, but that their particular sectarian doctrines be taught.

"By the time of the Civil War, Mann's position enjoyed wide acceptance in most places, and universal acceptance in others. A questionnaire sent to twelve leading citizens of Massachusetts in 1851 revealed general concurrence in the conclusion that the New England system of education, while nonsectarian, was far from irreligious. Had America been entirely Protestant, there seems little doubt that well nigh universal acceptance of this policy might have been achieved by 1865. But this was not the case, and after 1840, their ranks strengthened by the mass immigrations of the 1840's and 1850's, the Roman Catholics raised growing objections. Pointing to the fact that the Protestant version of the Bible was read in schools and that this Bible, contrary to Catholic doctrine, was read without comment or interpretation, this group continued to view the public schools as sectarian. In some places temporary compromises were achieved; in others Protestants refused to heed these complaints; and in still others separate Catholic schools systems were established. Suffice it to say that before 1865 the Protestants had no adequate solution to the problem."    

   ----------==========**********O**********==========---------

The point is inescapable. The Bible was taught in public schools long after the Constitution was ratified. Even while Horace Mann was active, the New England Primer was still being used:

    That Cotton Mather's injunctions were not simply the ravings of a
    [fanatic] minister is attested by the whole content and spirit of 
    the New England Primer which was the most widely read school 
    book in America for 100 years. The best estimate is made that 
    some 3,000,000 copies were sold from 1700 to 1850.
    Butts & Cremin, p.69

The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; . . . it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
J. Rehnquist, dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
--------------------------------------------- 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

> Kevin said:  >>According to the Founding Fathers, the purpose of
> public schools was to teach "religion, morality and knowledge," because
> these three things were "necessary for good government and the
> happiness of mankind." (Northwest Ordinance, 1787)<<
>
> I noted:  >> That's not what the law said.  It said that because religion, morality and
> knowledge are important, education is to be encouraged.  <<
>
> Kevin said:  >>Read the law again, Ed:
>
> "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
> government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the
> means of education shall forever be encouraged."<<
>
> Yes, exactly as I said, and quite different from your earlier statement
> that the purpose of public schools was to teach "religion, morality
> and knowledge which you referenced to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.  

If Ed's overall theory were true, it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to say that religion is "necessary for good government." This endorsement of religion makes irreligious people feel "left out." The Soopreme Court has said this is a no-no. But the Founding Fathers said this was a yes-yes. Ed is wrong about the importance of religion in the minds of the Founding Fathers, so he is likely wrong about the purpose of schools in the text of their Northwest Ordinance. (I'll prove the point in a moment.)

> Kevin said:  >>Why encourage schools if they are not allowed to
> teach religion and morality?<<
>
> To teach kids how to read, most basically.  The idea among
> most American political thinkers on the topic of religion was
> that Americans should be able to read the Bible for themselves,
> and not be subject to misinterpretations of preachers and priests.  

Yes, and what a far cry that is from modern political thinkers, who think Americans should NOT read the Bible for themselves. They certainly wouldn't say that a knowledge of the Bible was "necessary for good government." But the Founding Fathers said just that. This shows that the "separation of church and state" (that is, the separation of the Bible and good government) is a myth.

> Being literate made for good citizens, including good citizens
> of any church.

And the rate of literacy has plummeted since the invention of the "separation of church and state." When a nation repudiates God's Word in schools, it repudiates literacy.

>>How does the means accomplish the end?
> Why not just let churches accomplish this goal?<<
>
> Churches had failed to provide education to the degree required.  
> So government encouraged it.  Churches were non-existent in
> many frontier towns.

This is false. Ed has been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies. Literacy was near 100%, and education was dominated by churches and clergy. On the Frontier, education, when not closely connected with a church, was overseen by McGuffey and his Readers, which were still Christian. The Northwest Ordinance pays homage
to the connection between religion and literacy.

Last week I quoted from Bancroft's history:

In the settlements which grew up in the interior, on the margin of the greenwood, the plain meeting-house of the congregation for public worship was everywhere the central point; near it stood the public school. The snug farm-houses, owned as freeholds, without quit-rents, were dotted along the way. In every hand was the Bible; every home was a house of prayer; all had been taught, many had comprehended, a methodical theory of the divine purpose in creation, and of the destiny of man.
George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.2,
Chapter 6: The Old Thirteen Colonies, 1754, p.402

Where is Ed's evidence that this had changed?
Where is Ed's evidence that if this had changed, it was a good thing?

Ed said:  >> In other words, it says learning is essential to religion.  
> That's all.  It is important to note that the law did not establish schools.<<
>
> Kevin said:  >>Read the law again, Ed:
>
> "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government
> and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
> shall forever be encouraged."
>
> I suspect this is a sleight-of-hand deception, that the law did not "establish"
> schools in the sense that it did not appropriate funds for schools.
> The connection between schools and religion -- a connection frantically
> denied by the ACLU -- is clearly made. <<
>
> If there is sleight of hand, it is not mine.  Kevin said that the founders
> were clear that schools were to teach religion.  Fact is that the founders
> said nothing of the sort officially, especially in this law.  The founders
> "encouraged" education, but established no schools.  Consequently,
> any statement that the founders "said" anything was the purpose of
> the schools is a fabrication.  The founders did not say, the founders
> established no public schools.

As usual, Ed cites no evidence of any kind to support his opinions, nor does he cite any evidence to counter the evidence I have posted many times, such as the statement of Justice Douglass:

    Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school
    system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First
    Amendment, provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and
    knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness
    of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
    encouraged."

Ed says the Northwest Ordinance says nothing about the intent of the Founding Fathers with regard to schools. A Supreme Court Justice disagrees. So does every historian and legal scholar I have ever read.

I sure wish what Ed says were true. As an anarchist I believe in the separation of school and state. Unfortunately, the Northwest Ordinance is part of a pattern of government involvement in education far beyond what I think is proper. Ed loves it when the feds boss local schools around, even going so far as telling little town schools in Kentucky that they can't post privately-paid-for posters of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall. Ed probably wishes the feds would take over all schools, exercising complete totalitarian control.  I'm opposed to this kind of Nazism. I wish the Founding Fathers could have seen what people like Ed would do to the highest literacy rate the world has ever known. They probably wouldn't have set such dangerous precedents by interfering in the creation of schools as much as they did. Too much intervention for me; not enough for Ed.

While the NWOrdinance did not draw up blueprints for each individual school building, it clearly was a powerful act of support for bringing public schools into existence:

Two principal means for disposing of public lands had been developed in the colonies prior to the Revolution. One, originating in New England, involved the carving of land for sale into townships before it was offered for private purchase. In keeping with New England tradition, grants for the support of religion and education were frequently made as part condition of the township sale. The other system, developing primarily in the South, involved simply the sale of land parcels varying with individual purchases. No grants were made either for schools or for ministers.

When the Continental Congress in 1784 appointed a committee to draft a plan for the sale of public lands, these were the principal alternatives before it. Their deliberations led eventually to the Land Ordinance of 1785, which, although it represented a compromise, carried a provision reserving the six­teenth section of every township (each township was divided into thirty-six equal parcels one mile square called sections) "for the maintenance of public schools within the said township." The advantage of such a provision is clear in that public money for schools would make purchase and settlement more attractive to men with families. In any case, when Congress two years later was faced with the problem of establishing a government in the Northwest Territory (an area represented by the present states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota), it reinforced and restated this policy in the now-famous Article 3 of the Ordinance of 1787: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Although grants under these two ordinances amounted to millions of acres, the federal government extended its liberal policy even further after 1800 by earmarking for educational purposes certain lands in almost every new state. In many sections of the country valuable oil and mineral deposits have since been discovered on these lands, and they have often proved to be lucrative sources of school income.

R. Freeman Butts, Teachers College, Columbia University
Lawrence A. Cremin, Teachers College, Columbia University
A History of Education in American Culture
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953
Ch. 8, Characteristic Educational Practices
Organization, Support, and Control     p. 245

I challenge Ed to quote any recognized authority on the history of American Education to substantiate his contention that the Founding Fathers did not take significant steps in the Northwest Ordinance to create public schools to teach Christian piety and virtue.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

In message-id: <20010417233806.20563.00000554@ng-co1.aol.com> dated: 4/17/2001 8:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, EDarr1776 writes:

> I said:  >>> I wonder, Kevin:  Why do you fail to quote Article 1 of
> that same section of
> the law?  Other than the fact that it completely obliterates your claim,
> what is it you fear from the whole truth?
>
> Kevin responded:  >>How does Article 1 "obliterate" my claim that because
> "Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government
> and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
> shall forever be encouraged." ??<<
>
> It rebuts exactly your overall claim that the founders intended to establish
> ANY religious instruction, or that the founders intended to establish a
> Christian government rather than a secular government.
>
> You keep referring to Article III's statement that schools are good.

Actually, I refer to Art. III's statement that Christianity is "necessary for
good government."

> You fail to even mention Article I.  The Articles we are talking about are
> essentially a bill of rights for the Northwest Territories, and appear in
> Section 14 of the ordinance:  
>
>>Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
<<

What Ed tries to cover up is the fact that "peaceable and orderly manner" was defined by the Founding Fathers as "Christian" morality. Mormons who wanted to have multiple wives had their "religious freedom" infringed because polygamy was not acceptable in "a Christian nation." Recall the "religious freedom" section of the Constitution in Madison and Jefferson's home state of Virginia:

Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

No taxes for churches; all Christians have religious freedom to worship the Creator according to their conscience. Polygamy and other non-Christian practices are a crime. In the eyes of the ACLU, this is a Christian Theocracy.

This is obviously, patently, NOT the establishment of "secular government."
This is part of a nation "under God," a Christian nation.
Article III inescapably states that RELIGION (not secularism) is "necessary for good government." Accordingly, everyone who signed the Constitution agreed that government should promote religion. 
"Secular government" is a myth.

> For that matter, you never cite all of Article III, with that glaring bit
> of law that was violated so often and so hard by the government,

Along with the part about teaching religion and morality in schools -- so what's your point? -- that the Northwest Ordinance did NOT require good faith towards the Indians? Clearly, it required good faith toward the Indians and religion in schools, even though BOTH have come to be repudiated by a Secularist, Apostate, Once-Christian nation.

> nor Article II, which suggests that there were a lot of other rights
> beyond religious rights on the minds of the men who wrote the law:

All rights given to us by our Creator, who requires of ALL of us to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Proof that Article 1 is being misinterpreted by Ed is found in the State Constitutions of every state admitted to the union under the Northwest Ordinance. This includes nearly every state up to 1875. David Barton explains:

Subsequent to the passage of this Ordinance, when a territory applied for admission as a State, Congress issued an "enabling act" establishing the provisions of the Ordinance as criteria for drafting a State constitution. For example, when the Ohio territory applied for statehood in 1802, its enabling act required that Ohio form its government in a manner "not repugnant to the Ordinance."[74] Consequently, the Ohio constitution declared:

Article VIII BILL OF RIGHTS.
sec 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent, and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious society or mode of worship, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office of trust or profit. But religion, morality and knowledge being essentially necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instructions shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision not inconsistent with the rights of conscience.
Done in convention, at Chillicothe, the twenty-ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two, and of the independence of the United States of America, the twenty-seventh.[75]

This is clearly a constitution which endorses religion. It is not purely secular. It does not require government to be non-theistic. 
Ed is wrong.

While this requirement originally applied to all the territorial holdings of the United States in 1789 (the Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), as more territory was gradually ceded to the United States (the Southern Territory -- Mississippi and Alabama), Congress applied the requirements of the Ordinance to that new territory[76]

Therefore, when Mississippi applied for statehood in 1817, Congress required that it form its government in a manner "not repugnant to the principles of the Ordinance."[77] This would include Article I of that Ordinance. But Congress did not find sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi (1832) to be "repugnant" to Article I of the NWOrdinance, even though the Mississippi constitution declared:

    "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of
    rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil
    department of this state.
    * * * Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
    government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of
    mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be
    encouraged in this state."[78]

This provision of the Mississippi Constitution was cited with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court when it declared in 1892 that America was "a Christian nation." This completely refutes Ed's interpretation of Article I.

Congress later extended the same requirements to the Missouri Territory[79] (Missouri and Arkansas) and then on to subsequent territories. Consequently, the provision coupling religion and schools continued to appear in State constitutions for decades. For example, the 1855 Kansas constitution combined Articles I and III of the NWOrdinance into

Article I - Sec. 7.
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Why protect religion? Because religion is "essential to good government."
Why encourage schools? Because religion is "essential to good government."

The 1858 Kansas constitution required:

    Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good
    government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to make suitable provisions
    ... for the encouragement of schools and the means of instruction.[80]

The 1861 Constitution began:

Preamble

    We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the State of Kansas

Ed wrote:

> Kevin said:  >>Why encourage schools if they are not allowed to
> teach religion and morality?<<
>
> To teach kids how to read, most basically.  The idea among
> most American political thinkers on the topic of religion was
> that Americans should be able to read the Bible for themselves,
> and not be subject to misinterpretations of preachers and priests.  

KC:
Yes, and what a far cry that is from modern political thinkers, who think Americans should NOT read the Bible for themselves.

In message-id: <20010423191113.27272.00000890@ng-bk1.aol.com> dated: 4/23/2001 4:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, GroveLdy writes:

> Since when?  Thats not at all accurate.

That statement has been a little bit accurate since at least 1963, when the Soopreme Court took the Bible out of government schools. The Court in Abington v. Schempp quoted

"Dr. Solomon Grayzel [who] gave as his expert opinion that . . . material from the New Testament . . . if . . . read without explanation, could be, and in his specific experience with [Jewish] children Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child[ren]. . . ."

But the Supreme Court in 1844 had said:

Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?

These two different Courts arrived at two different conclusions about whether children should read the Bible NOT because the 1963 Court saw the Constitution more clearly than the Court in 1844, or understood the Founding Fathers more perfectly, but because the Supreme Court in 1844 understood that this was a Christian nation, a nation "under God," and the 1963 Court wanted to change all that and impose the religion of Secular Humanism on us.
The Constitution did not require us to view the Bible as "psychologically harmful."

The Founding Fathers believed that schools were the place for the Bible.

Benjamin Rush
Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean
to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament.
Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.

  Religion was once deemed to be a function of the
  public school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which
  antedated the First Amendment, provided in Article III that
  "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to
  good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
  and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
  -- Justice Douglas, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Concerning modern Humanistic courts, I said:

>They
>certainly wouldn't say that a knowledge of the Bible was "necessary
>for good government." But the Founding Fathers said just that.
>This shows that the "separation of church and state" (that is,
>the separation of the Bible and good government) is a myth.
>
> I think the above is the myth Kevin.

What do you think is a myth? and Why do you think that way?

Or do you disagree with my statement that the Founding Fathers said that religion and morality were "necessary for good government"? 
But the Founding Fathers DID say that! Read it here. Read all the other links I've posted. Read SOMETHING!

• The Bible in Public Schools: The Founders' View
• Bible Reading in the Schools
• In Defense of Horace Mann
• McGuffy's and the New England Primer
• Government-Led Prayers
• Literacy and Knowledge without Christianity?
• Non-Sectarian, but still Religious
• The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
• Religion and Education

>
>> Being literate made for good citizens, including good citizens
>> of any church.
>
> Being literate did make for good citizens but
> the majority at the time were not literate.

Is citing EVIDENCE against your religion, Grovelady? Why do you say the majority were not literate when all the evidence shows that literacy has plummeted since the Bible was removed from schools?  Read the evidence here.

>
>And the rate of literacy has plummeted since the invention of the
>"separation of church and state." When a nation repudiates
>God's Word in schools, it repudiates literacy.
>
> Hogwash, horsefeathers and plain silly.

You are obviously a woman of passionate, unshakable faith.
No amount of evidence or logic or historical facts will diminish your Secular Humanist devotion.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

In message-id: <20010427013607.01600.00000252@ng-mn1.aol.com> dated: 4/26/2001 10:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, EDarr1776 writes:

> Kevin hyperventilates:  >>I sure wish what Ed says were true.
> As an anarchist I believe in the separation of school and state.
> Unfortunately, the Northwest Ordinance is part of a pattern of
> government involvement in education far beyond what I think is proper.<<
>
> What involvement could that possibly be?  Kevin claims there is
> government involvement in education here?  Where?

In order to make settlement of the Northwest Territory more attractive, Congress insisted that schools be formed in every 16th section. No state was admitted to the Union without suitable provision in its state constitution for schools which would teach the "religion, morality and knowledge" which were "necessary for good government." These state constitutions (some of which I quoted in previous posts) copied the language of the NWOrdinance almost word-for-word. Only a desperate separationist can fail to see the evidence. The Encyclopedia of Education (Macmillan & Free Press, 1971), separationist but not as desperate as Ed, admits that:

Federal support of education began in 1785 with the Northwest
Ordinance and has been a fact of American life to a generally
increasing degree ever since.

Support of education in the individual states began in 1785 when
the Congress of the Confederation adopted an ordinance con-
cerning public lands in the Western Territory. This ordinance
provided that one section of land owned by the national government
be set aside in each township for the endowment of schools

In the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Ohio was granted two
townships as an endowment for a university -- the first instance
of federal support for higher education. Beginning with the
admission of Ohio to the Union in 1802, Congress established
the policy of granting federally  owned lands to new states at the
time of admission for the endowment of public education. In
addition, as new states were created, Congress granted them
15 percent of the receipts from sales of federal lands with their
areas. Of the 29 states receiving such funds, 16 were required
to turn them to the support of education, and after 1889 all
new states were required to do so.
Lee C. Deighton, "Federal Educational Activities: Overview, History"
Encyclopedia of Education, 3:510, 544

The Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation
devised ways to charter and to ensure the existence of schools
in future western states. The land ordinances of the mid-1870's,
whose purpose was primarily to secure government income
through the sale of federal lands, were the means for inserting
this cultural necessity into the program of the new nation.
Schools and churches, always an attraction to settling
families, were promised for each township. Thus the Land
Ordinance of 1785 stipulated that in each new state the
16th section, one square mile, of every township should
be set aside "for the maintenance of public schools within
the said township." The Continental Congress restated this
policy in the memorable Article 3 of its great Land Ordinance
of July 13, 1787: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
By this declaration public schooling was promised for a vast
area of the Old Northwest that was to become the states of
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of
Minnesota.
Wilson Smith, "Jeffersonian Age, Education in,"
Encyclopedia of Education, 5:252

> What school was ever founded as a result of this law, Kevin?  
> Name the school and the place it was.  Give us the year of
> its founding.  Where was the law from the Congress authorizing
> the school?

Every public school in the states listed above, plus those of the Southern Territories, Mississippi, Alabama, and every public school in Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and any other state whose Enabling Act required that its state constitution "not be repugnant to the principles of the Northwest Ordinance." Each of these states have in their constitution the language of the Ordinance, such as Ohio:

    [R]eligion, morality, and knowledge being essentially necessary
    to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
    and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged
    by legislative provision

These states would not have been admitted to the Union without provisions in their constitutions for public schools. 
But Ed doesn't give up:

> You make fantastic claims that are wholly unsupportable by history.  
> It is fiction to claim that the Northwest Ordinances were great
> involvement in education.  I'll be surprised if you can find a school
> in the TERRITORY, let alone one established directly as a result
> of any federal action.
>
> But it's your claim; surely you wouldn't make a claim wholly without
> any information in hand, would you?  Where are the facts?

The facts are abundant. The facts are admitted by every source.
Ed not only ignores all the authorities I've posted so far, but he cites not a single authority to the contrary.

Justice Rehnquist wrote:

The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say
nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal
Establishment 163 (1964).
Wallace v. Jaffree, dissenting (1985)

I suggested that if the Founders had known where federal intervention in education would have led,
>> They probably wouldn't have set such dangerous precedents by interfering in the creation of schools as much as they did.
Too much intervention for me; not enough for Ed.<<
>
> The founders did absolutely nothing for public schools at the federal level,
> and Kevin calls it "too much intervention."
>
> It's difficult to read that as anything but an attack on education, Kevin.  
> I can't tell if you are trying to be sly in your attack, or if you genuinely
> don't understand what you're saying.
>
> Ed

Ed needs to do some study in the history of American Education.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

In message-id: <20010427012534.01600.00000251@ng-mn1.aol.com> dated: 4/26/2001 10:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, EDarr1776 writes:

> Kevin said:  >>As usual, Ed cites no evidence of any kind to
> support his opinions, nor does he cite any evidence to counter
> the evidence I have posted many times, such as the statement
> of Justice Douglas:
>
> Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public
> school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the
> First Amendment, provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and
> knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness  
> of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
>
> Ed says the Northwest Ordinance says nothing about the intent of
> the Founding Fathers with regard to schools. A Supreme Court Justice
> disagrees. So does every historian and legal scholar I have ever read.<<
>
> As ever before, Kevin misrepresents both the statement he quotes and
> Justice Douglas' statement.  Kevin misrepresents the context, too.
>
> Douglas' opinion quoted a lower court, and that is what Kevin calls
> Douglas' view.  The quote Kevin cites is a footnote, not the opinion.  

Ed has made this argument before. I have asked him to cite the lower court so we can find those words in that opinion. Ed has never cited that court. The words are those of Douglas, not a lower court, and they are part of his opinion. Ed is mistaken because he relies on the case as found on the FindLaw site, which has a glitch in their HTML. I have the official U.S. Reports. The words belong to Justice Douglas. Read his opinion here.

> In short, it's not Douglas' words, it tends to run counter to Douglas'
> rule in the case, and it's not "the Supreme Court saying it."

I never said the Supreme Court said it. I believe I always said it was Justice Douglas saying it. However the Soopreme Court never denied the facts presented in the State Supreme Court which the Soopreme Court was overturning.

It does not at all run counter to Douglas' argument in the case.
He said:

At the same time I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words. The Court analogizes the present case to those involving the traditional Established Church. We once had an Established Church, the Anglican. All baptisms and marriages had
to take place there. That church was supported by taxation. In these and other ways the Anglican Church was favored over the others. The First Amendment put an end to placing any one church in a preferred position. It ended support of any church or all churches by taxation. It went further and prevented secular sanction to any religious ceremony, dogma, or rite. Thus, it prevents civil penalties from being applied against recalcitrants or
nonconformists. A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads.
Read his opinion here.

> Among other things, Kevin tries to blur the fact that, when the
> Northwest Ordinances were passed, there were very few public
> schools -- and none on the frontiers affected.  

This is like saying the Mayflower Compact cannot be interpreted as establishing Christian government, because there was no government in the New World at that time! That's PRECISELY why the NWOrdinance took steps to ESTABLISH schools on the frontier!!!!!!! And of course they ensured that these public schools would teach "religion and morality."

> Public schools
> would not be established in any numbers for another 35 to 40 years.  

As each town grew and built a school, the school taught "religion and morality." I've provided abundant evidence to show this; Ed once again posts no evidence whatsoever.

> This one passing reference to religion, on the way to endorsing
> public education, does not do the work Kevin wishes it to do.
>
> Ed

According to the scholars I've cited, the NWOrd set in motion the circumstances which the Soopreme Court had to un-do in 1962-63. The NWOrdinance was passed by the same Congress that drafted the First Amendment. They believed that religion and morality were necessary for good government and they made sure that public schools taught it. Not a single person who signed the Constitution intended for that Constitution to prohibit the teaching of religion and morality in any public institution. I've posted the evidence, Ed and Grovelady continue to post nothing but wishful thinking.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7