Rebecca's Response

Someone emailed me today this EXCELLENT point to remember:

"...remember that the founders of this country came here seeking freedom of religion--the right to worship as they saw fit…and not be persecuted or judged. Yes, most of them were Christians, so it’s correct in saying we were founded on Christian principles. I think they were very careful NOT to write Christianity into the Constitution…and they believed that each person should have the freedom to worship according to their beliefs."

Now for my response - I know I've thrown a lot on here in 2 days. But that's blogging and I've been behind. Someone emailed me and said it sounds like I think Christianity is the only way, only Christians have morals. First, they weren't my responses. I was publishing responses to the Treaty of Tripoli info posted.

Whether Christianity is the only way, is something every person has to determine themselves. I certainly do not think only Christians have morals. All humans fall short in some matter and probably all humans lack morality in some aspect of their lives, regardless of how much they choose to excuse it away. So here are some thoughts I have on this nation and it's "Christianity".

I've noticed, as I'm sure many have, over the years a general movement away and a growing intolerance within our country of Christian principles or the freedom to simply express the belief in Christianity. To the point that some religious persecution is happening and I think coming in our future to this country. This is why it gets my interest to hear the president say we are not a christian nation any longer and I am concerned that he attempts to speak for this nation regarding that matter and as to what the future will hold for Christian views. It seems as human nature, our politics and stance on things is either WAY left or WAY right, not really meeting in the middle so tolerance for one view, means obliteration for the other.

Maybe the Treaty of Tripoli was signed as stated, in order to induce their nation in to peace and not continue to hurt US people, maybe OBama's words were meant as such as well. To induce peace with a nation, who's religion seeks to destroy those with opposing religions. As I type this, the thought occurs to me how interesting it is that OBama is in the middle of a world meeting, a political meeting and sees fit to discount our Christian principles as a nation, in order to bring peace and hopefully end further attacks on US citizens. It seems to boil around religious beliefs. Yet, we must discount ours to induce their favor. Seems a bit two sided and begs attention to what is being given away for the rights or consideration of another country. This is the US and I think we are giving away who we are in many areas, which in turn is giving power to other countries to dictate what and who we are.

Dori Monson recently talked about the fact that an American can't smile in a drivers license photo yet, Muslim women are able to sue and win in the states to keep their faces covererd in their photos. This had nothing to do with being Muslim or anything against any particular race of people. It was about the fact that the Drivers License and it's photo is something we do here in America for identification purposes. Should someone choose to live in this fine country, they should be ready to abide by our laws. Instead we seem to be expected to change the way we live in our own country to accommodate those from around the world that choose to come here. Many listeners called in who had lived abroad and talked about how proud citizens are in other countries, flags are flown, pride is lived and the country is not trumped within by outsiders. Yet, in a large move for tolerance and acceptance of everyone, America is losing who it is as a Nation. When the right to put up your American Flag is removed because the flag is offensive to another person, living on our soil, it's gone too far. When a government official shows up outside someone's personal residence and starts interrogating them about what they are doing in their own home, because it is of a Christian gathering where the words Amen, Hallelujah and praise songs are used - something has gone too far. We need to wake up in light of these small movements against tolerance for Christian principles AND who our nation is. Maybe we need to go back to the beginning and remember where we began. I think this interest in whether we began as a "Christian" nation or not is part of that fighting back and attempt to keep our country American and against the movement to uphold the rights of everything - but Christianity.

I heard this interesting song the other day - something about how things in life don't happen overnight. It happens slowly. A marriage doesn't end overnight, a father doesn't leave his children overnight, etc. Things happen over time to slowly erode something that was strong. I see that happening to our great nation and many things are happening across America we don't even realize. When someone can bring them all together in one place for the big picture, well "overnight" is happening and we need to pay attention.

And no I do not believe in any way only Christians have morals or values. But I do believe there is a need to stand up & pay attention to where this is headed and fight for our rights to live with those values. It chills my blood when I listen to the DVD "expelled" and hear a scientist say that what he hopes is people will rely on science more to achieve his goal, which is to ultimately push "religion" where it belongs, a nice thing for the weekend and at some point, humanity will no longer feel the need to rely on religion or God. For me it's not about doctrine, I believe God is too many times forced & pushed in to the same category as "religion" and they are two very different things. I know God exists by my own life experiences and believe there is a danger of forgetting who we are in this universe, what humanity means and the importance of human life.

Mr. Chadwell Part 6

Mr. Chadwell can be found at TroutMac.blogspot.com

Well, I guess THIS would be the wrap on this issue. You may be familiar with the old saying "A text without a context is a pretext." I think this applies in this case.

I think you have to take into account what is meant when a nation is "founded on" Islam and realize that such nations have no tolerance for dissenting religious views either from within OR from without. (You know, because Islam is such a "peaceful" religion. Gag.) In the case of the Treaty of Tripoli, this becomes key. It was in the interest of the U.S. at that time to make these nations understand that we were not founded on Christianity the way they were founded on Islam and that we were not the sort of country that would make war with other countries over different religious beliefs. (and the Muslim nations were, by the way) I think that this is the thrust of article 11. In other words, the Treaty of Tripoli was written to a Muslim nation or nations, not to our citizens, and those Muslim nations would have understood this in a particular way.

This seems like the best way to harmonize article 11 with those other quotes from the same men that signed the treaty. Again, we cannot merely sweep their other comments under the rug. If we can, then why don't we sweep the language of the TREATY under the rug? Nope… that wouldn't be right either.

Another interesting point may be found in that very first line of article 11. The article states that the GOVERNMENT of the United States isn't founded on Christianity. I don't think I would want to say that the government is necessarily the same as our nation as a whole. This has always been unique to our government… it governs, but in a very limited way (or at least it was limited at one point in history) and so much of the nation operates, in a sense, independently of the government. Much of American life (even today, believe it or not!) is NOT governed. (enjoy it while you can!) Therefore it could be said that, while America as a nation with its society and culture was "founded on" Christianity, the government itself was set up according to Christian principles, but with limits established that would ensure freedom of religion in spite of the fact. I'll grant you that this line of reasoning is a bit more convoluted than the first, but treaties are not entered into lightly nor worded carelessly… you can bet that every word in that treaty was very carefully chosen. There's probably a reason why they referred to the government and not the nation.

Here are three more quotes which I could have included previously… I offer these because I actually think they threaten my second argument because they speak of GOVERNMENT being supported by religion (Christianity). "Founded on" has the idea of a foundation, and foundations (and pillars) support things.

Patrick Henry, 1799 "The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor… and this alone, that renders us invincible."

Patrick Henry says that religion (Christianity)--and the morality and virtue which flow from it--is the only thing that makes our nation invincible.

Daniel Webster, 1800 "To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper."

This one ought to get our attention. Morality is grounded in religion (again, Christianity) and without that, there is no grounding for morality. We have not preserved morals at all. Nationally we have embraced the notion that morality is relative, that what's right for you may not be right for me, that there is no such thing as truth, that all religions are equally valid (and, in reality, false). Therefore we have no grounding for morality, no foundation. Without that, Daniel Webster says, the superstructure MUST fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated (perverted or of impaired quality) and corrupt, laws become invalid and constitutions are like garbage. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Charles Carroll, 1800 "Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion… are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

What else needs to be said? Obama himself, though he claims to be a Christian, decries the Christian religion and has undermined any solid foundation of morals. Don't get too excited about that… lots of recent presidents have done precisely the same thing. I think there are rough days ahead for the United States.

Anyway, I think you get the idea. I think it's very difficult to rely on article 11 of this treaty as any kind of "proof" that American was not founded on Christianity or is not a Christian nation. The treaty had a very narrow context with a very narrow life span. It is predictable that atheists embrace the Treaty of Tripoli and yanked it out its context and used it to support their own world view… a world view which the founders clearly rejected. They do the same thing with evidence for evolution. They take finch beaks that change size and shape over time, pull that fact out of its context, ignore the fact that the finches' beaks end up getting smaller again and that the finches never become anything other than finches, and then from this they conclude that a single-celled organism can evolve into, well, YOU. Fits the pattern, doesn't it?

I think that's all I've got. Hope it all makes sense. I'd welcome your comments, critical or otherwise.

Mr. Chadwell - Pt 5 (and final?)

One other aspect of this that needs some light…

It is a popular notion that many of the founding fathers were "deists" and not Christians. Benjamin Franklin is often slapped with the "Deist" label. But if you compare the belief of Deism against some things that Franklin actually said, it makes you wonder.

The term "deist" today is a term reserved for a person who believes in a deity, but a deity that created the universe and essentially walked away. A disinterested deity. A deity that does not interfere in history, that doesn't interact with humans, and is generally not concerned with anything that goes on down here. Given that understanding of "deism", consider very carefully these quotes from Benjamin Franklin and ask yourself whether what he says is consistent with that sort of belief:

"…how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?"

Daily prayers? To whom? A god that doesn't care? A god that walked away? Divine protection? The god of deism won't protect anyone… he doesn't care, he walked away. Prayers heard and graciously answered? The god of deism doesn't answer prayers. Powerful friend whose assistance we need? What assistance does the god of deism offer us? None. Here's another.

"…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth––that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probably that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel…"

Does the god of deism govern in the affairs of men? The god of deism notices if a sparrow falls to the ground? Does the god of deism raise up empires? Does the god of deism assure us of anything? Does he reveal himself in sacred writings?

Clearly, Benjamin Franklin was no deist… at least not as deism is described today. Be very skeptical of claims about the founders being "deists."

How did the Founders' religious beliefs break down?

The denominational affiliations of the 55 "Founding Fathers" were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists… this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

This demonstrates that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

The conclusion here, of course, is that the vast majority of the founders were Bible-believing Christians, and even one that may have described himself as a "deist" (Franklin) wasn't a deist by today's vernacular and seems to indicate a firm faith in God of the Bible.

All important information to have when considering whether American is a Christian nation.

Mr. Chadwell Part 4

There's a very fair-minded analysis of the Treaty of Tripoli here:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

I guess you have to break the issue of resolving the apparent contradiction down into the possibilities. What are the possible explanations?

One possibility is that our government simply misrepresented itself for the purpose of getting the treaty passed so as to protect U.S. merchant ships from pirates. That's not a pleasant possibility… I'd like to think more highly of our founders than that. So I'm not saying I think that's what happened, but among the universe of possibilities, that's one.

Another possibility is that all of those other quotes are either misunderstood or are otherwise invalid. And of course, we'd have to show evidence to support that. That's another possibility, but it seems like even more of a stretch than the first.

The third possibility is that there's something in the historical context and language that would make sense out of the apparent contradiction. This seems most likely to me.

One thing we cannot do, however, is simply ignore the language of those founders who clearly viewed Christianity as the foundation of this nation. If we can simply ignore their language when it argues FOR a Christian foundation, why can't we just ignore language that argues against it? Understand, I'm not suggesting we do either… but the separatists are. They wish to simply ignore the language that argues against their understanding. This is not good form.

For example, it seems they might be ignoring the Treaty of Paris in 1783, fourteen years before the Treaty of Tripoli. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams and others, begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity..."

Now "Trinity" is exclusively a Christian doctrine… (or at least it was until Mormonism began using it to describe something else, but Mormonism wouldn't come along for another 60 years or so, and I suspect that their hi-jacking of that theological term came along some time after Joseph Smith wrote his books. Islam, for example, rejects the trinity and so does Judaism.

My point is that there must be something else going on here. It is certainly NOT the open and shut case that the Stephen Jay Gould article wants us to think it is. Having considered what I've offered thus far, don't you agree?

I think that there is an unfortunate tendency to overlook some middle ground in this "Is American a Christian Nation" controversy. Secularists seem to be under the impression that if we say that the nation is "founded on Christianity" that this necessarily removes their freedom to reject Christianity. They seem purely incapable of imagining a foundation built on Christianity which also ALLOWS them freedom to believe something else. When I say that America WAS founded on Christianity (and of course I do believe it was) I do NOT mean that our government set out to require citizens to believe in Christianity. For one thing, you could not possibly found a nation on Christianity (REAL Christianity, BIBLICAL Christianity) and require any such thing because you would understand, based on your belief in Christianity, that it's not possible to REQUIRE people to believe a thing. You would understand that people are answerable ultimately to God and God alone and to suggest they were answerable to you (the founder, let's say) for their beliefs would violate your own belief in Christianity!! So what the secularists are reacting to is not even possible if the founders really truly believed the Bible and had a proper understanding of Christianity, and it appears that they did.

Once again, there need not be this idea of "separation of church and state" in order for people to have religious freedom. The 1st amendment gives us religious freedom (or at least it did at one point… Now we've essentially swept it under the rug) by ensuring that the congress can make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That in no way means that the government's laws are not, or cannot be, based on Christian principles. I don't even understand why the government cannot "endorse" a religion in a general sense… again, without legal consequences. If, in talking with you, I "endorse" a particular view (as I often do!) that is not tantamount to me REQUIRING you to adopt that view, is it? Of course not!! As long as the government is not punishing people for not believing in Christianity, (or any other religion) and as long as the government is not interfering with the free exercise of religion, then we have religious freedom regardless of what religion the government may or may not have been founded on. Does that make sense to you?

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. We've discussed this before. You have some language about not requiring elected officials to belong to one religion or another, and you have the 1st amendment. I don't see how these occurrences argue at all for a "separation" except in the sense that the government is not requiring citizens to believe any particular religion.

Mr. Chadwell Part 3

One interesting element that I found, which doesn't really explain anything away, is that the Treaty of Tripoli was re-negotiated 8 years later, at which point article 11 was removed.

What does that mean? I don't really know.

Mr. Chadwell Part 2

Okay… The next step is to understand that, whether we like it or not, some of the same founders who were apparently involved in the Treaty of Tripoli said some things which, well, appear to blatantly contradict article 11 of the treaty. I believe you've seen many of these already, 'cuz I sent you a bunch recently. As I read article 11, initially I am really perplexed at how these men could have agreed to say THIS (article 11) when elsewhere they so clearly said something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. But it might also help to go back even further and discover why anyone ever came to this land from England at all. What was their mission? Naturally, part of it was to escape what they regarded as a tyranny in England. A religious tyranny, to be more specific. But consider this from the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England, May 19, 1643

"Whereas we all came to these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to injoy the liberties of the Gospell thereof with purities and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and the liberties of the gospell"

Wow!! These people (at least in 1643) had the idea that by settling North America as they did, not only were they escaping England, but it seems even more importantly, they believed they were enlarging the kingdom of Christ and SPREADING THE GOSPEL. Propagating the truth and liberties of the gospel. (they had odd spelling back then, didn't they?) This has powerful implications, does it not?

I'll grant you that it does nothing to explain away the Treaty of Tripoli language that came along 150 years later. We still have to understand what THAT was all about. But clearly the settlers had a particular "end and aim" in mind, and it clearly was not a secular, religiously "neutral" nation… at least not as early as 1643. Did things change that dramatically in 150 years?

Now, in light of this, consider these quotes:

John Adams, 1776 "Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand? That language "upon which… can securely stand" conjures up the idea of a "foundation" does it not? This is only 21 years prior to the treaty. Now, I also notice that Adams didn't say "Christianity", he said "religion." That's pretty broad. You'd have to look around a bit more and see if you could find evidence to suggest he may have understood "religion" to BE Christianity. More on that in a minute…

Benjamin Rush, 1798 "The only foundation for… 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."

Well this is interesting. One year AFTER the treaty was signed, and Benjamin Rush is saying that religion is the ONLY FOUNDATION upon which to build a republic is religion. Again, he doesn't specify WHICH religion. Interesting.

Samuel Adams, 1779 "Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness."

Wow. Again, this is 18 years before the treaty. Religion and morality are the ONLY solid foundation… there is nothing else on which you can establish public liberty and happiness. Interesting.

Patrick Henry, 1799 "The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor… and this alone, that renders us invincible."

Two years after the treaty. The "pillars of all government" are morality and religion!! Pillar, like a foundation, is a support.

Here are three quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville, who was not an American, but came here from France in the early 1800s (after the treaty, notice) and made these observations:

"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other."

"Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so."

"The religious atmosphere of the country was the first things that struck me upon my arrival in the U.S. In France, I had seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America, I found them intimately linked together and joined and reigned over the same land…"

De Tocqueville, an outsider, a "disinterested party", observed that it was CHRISTIANITY that was driving government and politics in the U.S. He said that religion (and by that clearly he means Christianity) should be considered the FIRST of [the Americans'] political institutions, and he says that in American, since the beginning (think of that quote from the Articles of Confederation) politics and religion have agreed, and apparently still did when he visited the U.S. You could hardly count de Tocqueville as any part of a grand conspiracy, right?

Benjamin Rush, 1798 "Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy."

Here Benjamin Rush, one year after the treaty, identifies Christianity as the religion in question.

So, how do we reconcile this with the language of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli?

Honestly, I'm not sure I know just yet. But I know this… whenever you have what appears to be a contradiction, it is either a genuine contradiction, or there is something about ONE SIDE of the contradiction that we're not understanding properly. Does that make sense? The question is, which side are we not understanding properly? The evidence seems overwhelming that the founders believed they were founding a nation on Christianity, at least in some sense. And yet here you have article 11 saying that the government was not founded on Christianity IN ANY SENSE. Truly, this is perplexing. Very interesting.

Mr. Chadwell Part 1

As you might expect, I have lots to say about this. I'll start off, however, with the frank admission that I had never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli either. I now understand that Obama apparently invoked the treaty in his recent speech which probably explains why this issue came to our attention, ultimately. So, understandably, in reading the treaty I'm struck by the language used. I'd like to share some observations with you about this which will serve as a foundation of sorts… a backdrop, maybe.

And by the way, thank you for bringing my attention to it. Every time I encounter something like this, it drives me to learn more about it, and in that process I become better equipped to deal with it. I'd much rather hear this from you than, say, some secular type whom I'm trying to persuade as to the founding of this nation and be left flat-footed, caught be surprise. So thank you, thank you, thank you!

For one thing, and understand this is a minor consideration but a consideration nonetheless, but the article you cite is associated with Stephen Jay Gould. Gould died a while back, but I think it's at least minimally relevant to understand who Gould was. Gould was a rather well known atheist and evolutionary, uh… scientist. I was going to say "biologist" but some of those guys get picky about their precise title, so I'll use the broadest one I know. Gould was bothered by the fact that the fossil record provided precious little in the way of transitional forms and if Darwin had been correct, we should have an incredible wealth of transitional forms. So, he came up with the theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" to explain away this lack of transitional forms.

What's my point? My point is that everyone has a bias. I most certainly have a bias, so do you, so did Stephen Jay Gould and those who share his world view. Hopefully you have seen by now enough evidence to persuade you that the popular evolution story which we were all fed is demonstrably false and literally impossible. And again, I don't disbelieve evolution if evolution simply means "change over time". I can agree to that and compromise NOTHING in the way of my Biblical world view. But if "evolution" means all living things descended accidentally from a single common ancestor, (this is the story we were fed in school) is laughably absurd and has, in fact, very little (if any) evidence to support it. Still getting to my point… The question is, if people like Gould can look at the plain evidence and simple problems associated with evolution and their naturalist world view and persist in interpreting that data to their favor, then they are obviously prone to twist anything else to their favor if it threatens their world view. These guys (as you've seen in the Expelled movie) will go to GREAT LENGTHS to defend their world view and deny God. Think of Michael Ruse in "Expelled" when he so confidently asserted the life arrived "on the backs of crystals" as if that explains anything. Think of Romans 1:22 which says "Professing to be wise, they became fools."

Now I understand that this alone does not disprove this whole assertion about the Treaty of Tripoli. But it demonstrates the lengths to which people of this world view will go in order to defend their view and to assail the truth. Therefore, their conclusions ought to be treated with careful scrutiny and suspicion, and if their conclusion turns out to be valid, so be it. But there's a good chance it won't.

New e-mail coming. You may post these as comments if you like… up to you. Right now I'm really just writing to you, personally, not so much "to your blog". I'll break this up into several e-mails, 'cuz this is going to get complicated.

I hope it's clear that, since this is the first time I've heard of this treaty, I'm actually reasoning this through to a large extent as I write whatever it is that I write. So while I most certainly do have a bias, I will try to set that aside and just focus on the question at hand and see what reasonable conclusions can be reached. It's a very interesting problem.

There are many passages in the Bible, for example, which skeptics love to point to as being contradictory and of course then they stomp all over the Bible and say that it's obviously not divinely inspired by some "perfect" God. But these always turn out not to be contradictions when the passages are examined more carefully. It always turns out that one part of the contradiction has simply been… often times it has to do with us imposing our way of doing things from our historical context and our culture onto their way of doing things in their historical context and their culture. When you get a little bit into their culture and historical context, the contradictions fade away and things start to make sense.

It's possible that something similar is happening here with this treaty, and that what the secularists are really doing is pulling this article out of its historical context in a way that is misleading. If that strikes you as a bit of a stretch, well, join the club. But we have to account for the thoughts expressed elsewhere by those same founders. If we just ignore all of that then most certainly we're missing something.

Make sense?

Treaty of Peace with Tripoli

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

Is America a Christian nation?

I hadn't heard of the US treaty with Tripoli before. Found this interesting article at the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

Interesting.

Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?
Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration.
By Ed Buckner, Ph.D.

We freethinkers are, I suspect, sometimes suckers for the big lie that the U.S. really was founded as a Christian nation. We've heard it so often that we tend to doubt our allies who dispute it as maybe just over-zealous, over-eager, well-intentioned-but-wrong atheists out to prove what they want to believe rather than to understand the truth. I know I suspected something like that when I first read "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." as a quote from the Treaty with Tripoli. And I know of at least one cynical atheist, Frederic Rice (with his own website full of information: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/).

Mr. Rice has even, in his profound ignorance, called me dishonest and urged me not to use the honorable label "atheist" for talking about the treaty. But careful research into the facts, accompanied by honest presentation of those facts, leads to important support for the thesis that the Constitutional framers intended this nation to have a government strictly neutral regarding religion.

The pirates of the Barbary coast in general and of Tripoli (in what is now called Libya) in particular were destroying U.S. shipping and holding as prisoners U.S. seamen in the 1790s. It was a serious problem and a series of negotiators were sent to try to put together an agreement to improve it.

On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington's second term, a treaty with the "Bey and People of Tripoli" was signed, promising cash and other considerations to Tripoli in exchange for peace. Leading the negotiations for the U.S. at that point was Joel Barlow, a diplomat and poet (he wanted very much to be remembered as America's epic poet). Barlow was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine (Paine hurriedly entrusted the manuscript of the first part of the Age of Reason to Barlow when Paine was suddenly arrested by the radicals of the French revolution).

Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. *If* the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian--it is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People," that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis. What the treaty does is to powerfully reaffirm what the Constitution and First Amendment intended. (The references in one or two later treaties to things such as the Trinity occurred in treaties with Great Britain and Russia, both officially Christian nations at the time; no declarations that the U.S. is a Christian nation were included.)

When I first read the words "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." I was, as I said, skeptical. Why would such a thing be in a treaty? Why would some have claimed, as I later learned, that George Washington wrote them? (Apparently only because the words were written during Washington's second term.) Was there controversy in the Senate when the treaty was ratified, or did the language even appear in the version ratified? Or was it buried deep within a long, complicated treaty where perhaps it wasn't even noticed? Did the public even know the treaty was passed or what it contained, and what was the reaction? Was it possible for the public to know who voted for it, and what price did those supporting it pay?

Fortunately for me, my son (and only child), Michael, lived for several years in Washington, DC, only two blocks from the Library of Congress, and my wife and I visited him frequently. When we did, I spent time at the L of C, much of it reading up on the treaty. I found some answers in the official Journal of the Senate. The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes. In a very public way, they voted to say that "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ." the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

What happened then? Did our heroes pay a heavy price? Skeptical that the public even knew about the treaty, I went to the periodicals reading room of the Library of Congress in, appropriately enough, the Madison Building. After some poking about I found out how to get access to newspapers of the 1790s, mostly on microfilm, but in a few cases I saw the actual papers of the day.

I found the treaty and Adams' statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

And what of our heroes? Well, none suffered any known negative consequences, and I've read biographies of each. One Senator, Theodore Sedgewick of Massachusetts, went on to become the Speaker of the House (imagine Newt Gingrich endorsing such a treaty! Henry Clay is the only other American in history to be first a Senator, then Speaker). Another, Isaac Tichenor, became Governor of Vermont, and then returned to the Senate for many years. Georgia's Senator, Josiah Tattnall (Georgia's other Senator was absent), did not return to the Senate, but he did serve thereafter as one of the youngest Governors in Georgia's history, and has a county in Georgia and a number of streets, squares, etc., named after him. (His father was a Tory; his son by the same name was a famous officer in the Confederate Navy.)

From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty.

Oy... Complicated

I feel an internal cringe as I read this because I am female - and I would rather communicate via technology. People are scary. McKenna recently said adults scare her. Avoid. I completely relate. Just the way this apple & tree work. Plus, I'm a writer so it comes so much easier for me to type away then try to get the words out through my thick, tangled web of mind & mouth. Sometimes, not effective or a good tool.... so read on fellow males... er, females... er humans. I have a conversation to hold at home. - Rebecca


From The Art of Manliness -

Q:
My wife and I got into an argument the other night about how many hours she has been working at her job. I would like her home more. I let things cool down a bit and did not speak with her again that night. The next day, I thought I would apologize to her for getting into an argument. But when I texted her, she responded with a snide remark. As hard as I tried to make things right, it just turned into another argument. It seems like no matter how hard I try, she is not willing to make up. Should we go to counseling?
A:
Hold on, let me get my police issue bullhorn. Testing one two. Okay. “PUT DOWN THE PHONE. REPEAT, PUT DOWN THE PHONE. IF YOU VALUE YOUR RELATIONSHIP, STEP SLOWLY AWAY FROM YOUR TEXTING DEVICE.”

Let’s talk about texting. I’ll get back to your marriage in a moment.

Call me old-fashioned (believe me, it won’t be the worse thing I’ve been called) but I just don’t believe that all of our problems can be solved with technology…or pharmaceuticals (something I’ve mentioned here in a previous column). Some things should be handled old school. In this case, we’re talking about…well, talking.

If you care about her, AND you’re dealing with a touchy topic, do not text, do not email, do not Twitter. Really, don’t you think your relationship deserves more than 140 characters?

If everything is just peachy, then sending an I love you is swell. But if you’re wanting to apologize, explain, plan, express feelings, offer support, debate or disagree, DO NOT do it electronically. If you must, pick up the phone. But this old guy’s advice is to do it face-to-face.

Relationships are complicated. Most men don’t do complicated very well. That’s why we need to keep it simple. Now-let me know if I’m going too fast for you-when we…talk…face-to-beautiful-face with our women, we can see them and they can see us. If they seem to be misunderstanding us, we can change our words, or adjust our eyebrows, to alter our message. When we talk in-person to those we care about, all of the complicated nuances of interpersonal communication happen naturally.
When we go electronic, all bets are off. Only the very talented can maintain any sense of nuance. And even then, both sides have to either still be in their honeymoon period, or know each other ridiculously well to avoid all possibility of confusion.

Let me give you a real-life example of how texting can foul up your intended meaning. For this column, I texted my 18-year-old son and asked him how he abbreviates a few phrases when he texts. He sent me a short message. I responded with great. He then responded with was that ok? I knew immediately that he thought my great was sarcastic, as if I was disappointed with what he gave me. But that was inaccurate. I thought it was awesome. I called him to verify my suspicion. And yes, he had inferred sarcasm when none had been implied. Now, that was between two men discussing nothing of any significance at all!

Cut to…you and your wife in the middle of an argument and your need to apologize, for being a jerk, via text.

One of the BetterMen Tools is “Don’t Argue,” (get a copy of my book to find out why I’m so adamant about not arguing) so I can see why you’d want to apologize. Now that you know to wait until you see her at home, let’s switch gears to the nature of your argument.

You’d like her home more. I don’t know what your financial situation is, but I assume you’d survive if she worked less. My suspicion is that you value what she does for you at home more than you value how her work makes her feel. I say this because the only reason you got into an argument with her was because you weren’t listening to her. What you wanted to communicate was more important to you than your wife.

Go back home, apologize for trying to apologize via text (oy, this is getting complicated) and then gently let her know that you miss her and wondered whether the two of you could discuss a new balance between work and home. You don’t need counseling to turn this around. You just need to care. Hope this helps. g2g c u l8r

Got a relationship question for Wayne? Email him @: askwayne@bettermen.org

CNN: Commentary: Man up and be a real dad

Excellent Article. I have been talking for years about looking around in my circle of "people" at how many fathers are walking away from their kids. It's a vicious blow to the kids. What a hole in their souls to live without a parent. Yet, we're too scared to talk about it. Those living with it, only can watch our kids hurt. And hope, something will bring a change of events. I cannot fathom living without my two. Like ripping the skin off my body. Yet it is happening everywhere and the next generations are paying the price. For those of you fathers who are staying intact with your children, you rock.



"Editor's note: A nationally syndicated columnist, Roland S. Martin is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information. He is hosting "No Bias, No Bull" at 8 p.m. ET on CNN while Campbell Brown is on maternity leave.

(CNN) -- "I'll kill all y'all."

Imagine looking at the man whose DNA you carry standing in your home, telling you those chilling words, as he wields a shotgun.

The frightening image is a scary thought. But according to former Major League Baseball star Darryl Strawberry, it was an actual scene, one that begins his book, "Straw: Finding My Way."

I vividly remember the towering home runs hit by the former star, who played for four big league teams, including the New York Mets and Yankees -- and of course, the many times he was in the news for failing drug tests, beating wives, getting cancer twice, going to prison. He was a man fighting enormous demons.

Yet as I read the book, there is one consistent theme that runs throughout and that sheds a spotlight on a figure that continues to plague neighborhoods all across the country: the missing-in-action father.

Strawberry makes a point repeatedly in "Straw" that he does not blame his dad for the trials and tribulations in his life; he says all decisions he made willingly. But he does speak to the issue of having a father who, by Strawberry's account, while technically in the house, was a raging drunk who spent his paycheck doing what he wanted, showing no love and affection towards his children, viciously beating Strawberry and his brother, all while telling them that they would be nothing in life. Watch Darryl Strawberry talk to Roland Martin about his father »

"I grew up in an inner city, South Central Los Angeles. When you grow up in the inner cities, most young men don't have a father figure around. Most mothers are raising the kids," he told me in an interview.

He later said, "I loved playing baseball; I loved playing basketball; excelling and achieving my goals was my own personal goals, but inside, I just never loved myself. I can remember the times when I excelled in baseball and I [would] do extremely well and the cheers and the glitter and everything that came along with it, but you know what, Roland? When I went home at night, here was I again, me myself, [asking] 'Who am I?' "

The cynical in our world undoubtedly will say, "Who cares about a drugged-out, washed-up ballplayer?" But the mental damage that Strawberry says wreaked havoc on him as a child cannot be discounted, and it's something that millions of young children, especially boys, are growing up with every day.

This isn't a tale of the stereotypical black athlete who grows up with the black father not in the home, leading to the cycle of violence and lack of family unity we see all around the country. Strawberry's dad was there. But, according to the former ballplayer, he was a horrible father. And right now, there are also young white boys in suburban and rural America who have dads in the home, physically, yet they have mentally and emotionally checked out. And the same for Hispanics and Asians.

It has gotten to the point that a mother is considered essential in a family, but a father is optional, expendable, and increasingly irrelevant.

I remember watching an OnStar commercial. And as the company touted the features, it showed a father driving his child around, and when the kid starts to cry, the dad freaks out and has to quickly call the mom to calm the baby down. I'm watching that and saying, "Man, it's your child, too! So calm it!"

Then there is the commercial -- I don't even remember what they were pitching -- of two or three kids in the kitchen making a mess after spilling the cereal. The hapless and hopeless dad looks at them and says, "Where is your mom?"

Every time that commercial comes on I scream at the TV, "Where is your mom? Where are your parenting skills, you ingrate!"

See, I take seriously the importance of fathers -- men -- in the lives of children. My wife and I don't have children of our own, but we are raising four of my nieces because they were struggling at home. They need to see a husband and a wife caring for them, but also instilling the right values in their lives.

I am convinced that our city streets have turned into killing fields because dads have abdicated their responsibility in the raising of their children. Yes, mom is vital. But there is something different about dad speaking, lecturing, cajoling, disciplining, embracing, loving and caring.

Our schools are filled with children losing their minds, and teachers unable to control them. When that happens, it's typically mom, grandma or an aunt coming to the school to deal with the problem. Ask a teacher or principal today and they will say they rarely see dads.

My mom has gotten ticked at times because I often talk more about my father than her on TV or radio. It's not that I don't love or appreciate her. But I do it because it is rare to hear men, especially black men, speaking affirmatively about their fathers.

I know what it means to have a dad raising and caring for you, and not seeing his child in a drive-by style, or just sending a check. Dads must be present and accounted for, playing a vital role in their children's life.

That's why I appreciated it when President Obama spoke about the issue of fatherhood on the campaign trail. We all know the story of his father leaving when he was 2 years old. And yes, he was able to be successful. But for every Obama, there are numerous boys who aren't able to hold it together.

I've called on pastors nationwide to stop the stream of momma, grandmother, aunts and female cousins coming to the altar for baby dedications with no man in sight. That pastor should say, "Until I personally meet with the father, I will not dedicate this child." Somebody has to hold that man accountable for his actions.

It's time that men hold their "boys" accountable. Actor Hill Harper had a friend who once said that he hadn't seen his child in some time, but he found time to play basketball with Harper. Hill said, "Unless you call your child now, we can't play ball." See, Hill had to force him to accept his responsibilities.

The failure of manhood in America -- fatherhood -- has reached epidemic proportions. And unless our religious and cultural institutions say enough is enough, we are going to see another generation of children growing up with dad absent and unaccounted for.

It's time for men to man up, so children can grow up with an equal amount of love and affection from both parents."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/martin.fathers/index.html

The loss of printed media - again

Knowledge is power and until the wide spread print of the newspaper, many people did NOT have a clue what was going on in the country. The government wanted to keep the citizens from being informed. Something started from a deep need in many countries. Therefore, being controlled by their inability to fight or participate in what is going on.

The real problem is that civilians have become too laid back about what is happening in the country, do not seek out the truth and let others do the work, let others feed them nonsense (WHO announces Swine Flu pandemic - hurry, panic! - for the release of government funds for medicine research...no conspiracy theory here) and don't stop to question, analyze, research and act. We all do it. Citizens have allowed the media and entertainment to become the rulers of our country and the government has learned how to use the media to it's advantage. Once again taking control.

For me, being a reader - one who reads the cereal boxes and has a house full of cereal box readers.... we miss the newspaper.

MSN: The 'other white meat' meets the runway

http://elkhartproject.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/05/2775828-the-other-white-meat-meets-the-runway?threadId=0#comments

In this city where President Barack Obama championed a federal stimulus bill free of "earmarks" and "pork," some elected officials and citizens are questioning whether the first "shovel-ready" project here to be funded by the legislation – a $4.2 million resurfacing of a runway at the Elkhart Municipal Airport – meets that promise.

It's an argument being played out in various forms around the nation as the money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package that Obama signed on Feb. 19 begins trickling down to the local level. (Click here to read msnbc.com reporter Tom Curry's account of how the money is making its way to Elkhart.) It often wears partisan garb, but at its heart is the vexing question of how you define "pork" and "earmarks" -- terms commonly equated with hogs at the trough.

As Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward explained in a Feb. 9 article titled "Obama has it both ways on pork," the Elkhart runway resurfacing and other projects that will benefit from the surge in federal spending are technically not earmarks. But that's not to say that they are pork-free.

"There are no 'earmarks,' as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill," he wrote. "Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects."

This Pro Publica article -- published on msnbc.com also before the legislation was finalized – also detailed numerous provisions and exemptions intended to benefit special interests or specific businesses or industries.

In Elkhart's case, the question boils down to whether the airport project benefits the few or the many.
There is no debate about whether the 6,500-foot runway needs resurfacing – it has visible cracks that are sprouting weeds. (Click here to read the Elkhart Truth's story on the airport resurfacing project.)

But there is plenty of discussion over the wisdom of spending federal money on it when the city with one of the nation's highest unemployment rates has so many other more-pressing needs. (Click here to read msnbc.com reporter Bill Dedman's piece on U.S. cities that resist recession and Elkhart's spiraling job loss problem.)

David Henke, one of three Republicans on Elkhart's nine-member Common Council, said he has two problems with the project.

"It's a little surprising to see stimulus money go to an airport that 99.9 percent of the citizens do not access," he said, referring to the fact that the airport is used by private and corporate aircraft and a few charter operations but has no commercial service. "The second point is that the stimulus should be used exclusively for long-term job reclamation. Repaving is going to help some contractors … but at the end of the day, once the project is done, the jobs are gone. It's not going to bring in new planes, it's not going to bring any new revenue."

Mayor Dick Moore, a Democrat who set the agenda for applications for stimulus funding, responds that such criticism misses the mark because the funds came from a $1.1 billion pool dedicated to airport renovation or maintenance and could not be used for other purposes.

"I guess we could've turned the money down, but we were at the top of the list because we already had filed with the FAA," he said. "… We would have eventually done it at great expense, with local dollars or by getting a grant and having to come up with matching funds."

He and Andy Jones, the airport's general manager, stress that the airport creates badly needed jobs throughout the city.

"Flying commercial eats up a lot of time for these executives; a lot of times it's really cheaper for them to be able to move in and out of where they do business quickly and efficiently," explained Jones.

Moore adds that while the airport's economic benefit to the city may be incalculable, it is not insubstantial when it leads to deals being finalized with local suppliers.

"When they fly away, what did they leave behind?" he wondered, musing about the departure of executives after such a meeting. "An order for the $3 million or $4 million?"

Beyond that, the mayor estimates that the runway repair alone will provide 250 short-term jobs, a number that strikes critics as too high but may not be far from the mark, according to Gene Yarkie, regional vice president with Rieth Riley Construction Co., Inc., which plans to bid on the project.

"A project like that seems quick and easy, but there are a lot of steps along the way that go into getting that to the runway or highway -- aggregates have to be mined, processed, trucked and then applied," he said. "A lot of jobs are created along the way."

Slowly boiling beneath the current debate about the runway project is a bigger question about the airport's net benefit to the city.

Henke, the city councilman, said the airport runs an annual deficit of $675 million – an expense that is born by city taxpayers. That leads some to question whether Elkhart even needs an airport, especially since there is a regional airport just 15 minutes away in South Bend, which offers nonstop flights to Atlanta, New York and other big cities.

Henke said he does not count himself among them.

"I'm not saying I'm anti-airport, but what I am saying is you've got to be smart about your investments," he said. "If you' own a lake cottage and you're behind on your payments, this is not a time to put an addition on."

The wild horse

I remember at 10 galloping, pretending I was the Lone Ranger (or Tonto) on my horse over some small hills (piles of dirt) in our back yard. And pining for that first horse. I remember the long car rides with my parents to the pens where the BLM horses were held and that one wild buckskin my mom fell in love with, who fought so bravely against the humans that would ensnare her. Over the years of horse training and ownership, she remained one of the best we owned and worth every buck (pun intended).

Recently our household has been following the loss of written media (newspapers) in our society as our 9th grader uses it as her Freshman Project. The other day I read about the department of communication technology (?) @ UW removing the landlines from their office. Our history being pushed in to the archives, bit by bit. As I read about the horse issue and felt startled 1)that there again were that many wild horses on the land - which I thought was very exciting - 2) that they were used for slaughter, I hadn't really given much thought to that ever - I again pined for a lost tradition. Horses.... the wild mustang... the symbol of a beautiful car and power. The sleek muscles, the speed, the sure footedness, the hair, deep eyes, attitude (yes they have it), the ability to survive.

Horses used to be part of the American life, our own survival, transportation, work on the home, recreation, endurance - a great tool to humanity exploring nature & our world. I guess I can't quite compare it to printed word or the ring of a phone, because it is life and beautiful in it's creation. Time's have changed and maybe I show my age at feeling sad to see the loss of what was. 3000 horses does not seem so many in consideration of the world itself. I can see how it would populate quickly and I do understand the concerns and yes, I realize I have extremely limited information. Yet, it doesn't pain me any less to see an alternative as to the end of a worthwhile creature. I'm not sure what alternative plans would be and some plan may require humans to get OUT of their Mustang and climb ON to their Mustang.

Alas, we don't have room or time for a newspaper... we don't even have an animal. How would we have it for a horse?

MSN: Too many horses: Northwest tribes consider slaughter facility for wild horses

As a woman who grew up with parents who bought these amazing animals, this is difficult to accept. It seems there would be another way, other then slaughtering them to put money in someone's pocket. Sorry, I don't equate horses to cattle. There are some great photos of these beautiful creatures on the website. Warm Springs Oregon.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009164786_horse03m.html

By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

Wild horses are icons of the West, but growing herds have become a costly problem. Tribes say the horses damage their land and need to be managed — maybe by bringing back slaughterhouses.

Here on this reservation in north-central Oregon, horses are woven deeply into daily life. They are traditionally used by tribal members in their work and their culture, whether it be for rodeos or horse parades.

Gathering, breaking and selling wild horses has long been part of the tribe's economy. Horses that don't make the grade are sold for slaughter.

But the nation's final three slaughterhouses were shuttered two years ago, and a perfect storm has formed with a glut of horses, lack of a market and economic recession.

Tribal rangeland managers now estimate 20,000 wild horses are overrunning Indian Country in Washington, Idaho and Oregon, with an annual foal crop raising the population by some 20 percent a year. At the Yakama reservation, range managers say 12,000 wild horses are damaging medicinal plants, depleting forage for wildlife, eroding fragile rangelands and harming salmon streams. Domestic animals, including cattle, add to the problem.

"We have been spending billions on salmon and steelhead recovery, and it goes for naught if we don't do something that fixes these other problems," said Arlen Washines, program manager for the Yakama Nation Wildlife Program.

Agricultural and rangeland experts from five tribes have been meeting quietly since last winter to explore options to manage horse populations on reservation lands. Their ideas, still in discussion, run the gamut. The most controversial: opening a slaughter plant at the Warm Springs reservation, and maybe someday packing the meat for human consumption overseas, if the regulatory hurdles can be cleared and economics pencil out.

The Northwest Tribal Horse Coalition, as the working group calls itself, says it wants to save and care for the horses with better management of the herds. The group is exploring adoption and contraception, but issued a draft report that declares some wild horses will have to be killed to rebalance the ecosystem. The coalition believes horse-slaughtering facilities are needed now — starting with a plant at Warm Springs.

Horse market collapsed

There used to be a thriving horse market in this country, with buyers bidding on horses for processing plants in Stanwood; Maytown, Thurston County; and more than 20 other plants across the country, supplying an eager trade, particularly in Europe.

But the country's remaining three horse slaughterhouses, in Illinois and Texas, closed in 2007 after a sustained campaign by animal-rights activists that resulted in Congress forbidding USDA inspection of horse meat for human consumption. That ended any legal commercial packing industry for horse meat in this country.

Still, there is a demand for horse meat, particularly in Europe. But with no packer competition in the U.S. to supply it, and a glut of horses, foreign packers can set their price.

Trucking the animals long distances to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico also means buyers will take only the fattest, biggest animals.

For the sick, the old, and the skinny, today there is often no market at any price. Buyers who remember paying 70 cents a pound at auction are today paying as little as 6 cents a pound — if the packers will even take the animal.

And the problem stretches far beyond Indian Country.

The bottom has fallen out of the horse market just as the recession is driving even owners of pedigreed, suburban stock to unload animals they can't afford to care for, overwhelming rescue and shelter operators.

It's the same story for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is struggling to feed and care for some 30,000 wild mustangs gathered from public rangelands and put out to pasture in the Midwest in deference to opponents of slaughter.

The BLM is paying $27 million this year alone to feed and care for wild horses living out their days at taxpayer expense. With another 30,000 or so more wild mustangs still roaming the range, multiplying every year, the costs are growing. So far, the BLM has no solution to the problem.

The fight over slaughter

Jenny Edwards, executive director of Hope for Horses, a nonprofit horse-rescue organization based in Woodinville, said that while she is no fan of slaughter, it is a necessary option. "We have to be big boys and girls about this, be realistic," Edwards said.

"It was part of the economic circle of life. It was the legitimate outlet for horses that were unusable for other purposes."

The Northwest Tribal Horse Coalition, composed of members of the Yakama and Colville tribes in Washington, the Umatilla and Warm Springs tribes in Oregon, and Shoshone Bannock in Idaho, wants a rendering plant at Warm Springs where live horses from the reservations and beyond could be slaughtered. The meat and carcasses would be processed for nonhuman consumption and disposal.

Markets for the meat, such as zoos, are being explored. Jason Smith, range and agriculture manager at Warm Springs, has traveled to Canada to examine packing plants.

Several states, including Montana, also are looking into the possibility of reviving U.S. horse slaughter.

They all face an uphill battle with animal-rights activists seeking to restrict slaughter even further. Legislation is pending in Congress to outlaw transporting U.S. horses to slaughter — anywhere.

"It's not an option," said Katie Merwick, president and founder of Second Chance Ranch, a horse-rescue operation in Elma, Grays Harbor County. "It's not conscionable, it's not moral. It's a horrible, scary transport and a violent death."

She said euthanasia is the only acceptable alternative. While it's expensive — it can cost $750 to put down and haul away a horse — it's cheaper than keeping the animal, and can be paid for in installments, Merwick said. "I guarantee if it was to fix your car, you'd find the money," Merwick said.

But people are simply dumping their animals because they see no other choice, Edwards said.

"Horses are being just abandoned," she said. "All over the place, all over the country."

"They fooled with

our culture"

The lack of a viable horse-slaughter market has disrupted tribes' traditional relationships with their horses. "They fooled with our culture and our livelihood and our right to work," said Smith, at Warm Springs.

Here on the reservation, horses peer from rimrock cliffs, doze in the sagebrush, and streak in free-running herds across the flats at the base of Mount Jefferson, looking every bit the icon of the West some people think they are.

The highways on the reservation are posted with signs depicting the streaming mane and tail of a running wild horse. On the 1,000-square-mile reservation, fences are few, and horses have the right of way. "You hit it, you buy it," is how it goes around here.

But on this reservation horses aren't icons or romantic abstractions. "We break and sell the best of our horses, and with no horse market, there has to be an out for the old ones, the sick ones, the ones that just don't make the cut," Smith said. "That is a huge part of our management. Without it they are neglected, overlooked. When you neglect one part of the circle, it affects the rest."

At Yakama, other factors have also contributed to the horse problem, including the preference among some tribal horsemen for highly bred, pedigreed animals for use in rodeos and even for status, Washines at Yakama said.

"It affects how people look at wild horses on the reservation. They are not papered, so ... they don't mean anything to anybody. It has affected the spiritual connection to the horse," Washines said. "The two biggest problems is the shutdown of the market for the horse, and the lack of interest in the horse itself.

"... They just leave them out there and nobody thinks about them, they don't have anything to eat, they eat themselves out of their home range areas and they just stay in the same place. People say just leave them alone, they will be all right. Well, horses don't eat rocks that I know of."

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com

From outbreak to overreaction?

By Joel Achenbach and David Brown
The Washington Post

So is this new swine-flu outbreak the next great plague or a global spasm of paranoia?

Are we seeing a pandemic or a panic?

The pathogen that has seized the world's attention has an official name (swine-origin influenza A H1N1), an acronym (S-OIV), a nickname (swine flu) and an apparent birthplace (Mexico). But the essential nature of the pathogen, its personality, its virulence, remain matters of frenetic investigation. Like all influenza viruses, it is mutating capriciously, and thus is not a static and predictable public-health threat but an evolving one.

The bug has gone global, showing up in Asia on Friday with the first reported case in Hong Kong. It also popped up in Denmark and in at least six more U.S. states.

But there has been some flu-scare backlash, with some officials questioning whether schools are too quick to close their doors at the first hint of the virus.

The World Health Organization (WHO) addressed the pandemic-versus-panic issue Friday by cautioning the public against leaping to any conclusions about the virulence of the virus. It has yet to show lethality outside Mexico (the one person to die in the United States was a toddler who traveled from Mexico to Texas), though that doesn't mean it will remain a mild pathogen in the weeks and months to come, officials said.

Influenza is a simple virus, with eight genes, but it makes poor copies of itself, leading to constant mutation. Most of those mutations are dead ends, but, given enough chances, the virus can become more infectious or more lethal. Although the United States is past its flu season, the Southern Hemisphere is just starting its season, entering the cold months when influenza can become explosive.

Some positive news surfaced Friday: Mexican scientists said the contagiousness of the swine flu is no greater than that of the seasonal flu that circulates every year. And a preliminary genetic analysis hasn't turned up any of the markers that scientists associate with the virulence of the 1918 Spanish influenza virus, said Nancy Cox, head of the flu lab of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In New York City, which has the most confirmed swine-flu cases in the United States with 50, the illness has not spread far beyond cases linked to one Roman Catholic school. In Mexico, the epicenter of the outbreak, very few relatives of flu patients seem to have caught it.

Almost everyone who became ill from the virus is either recovering or already well.

Still, it was too soon to be certain what the virus will do. Experts said the only wise course is to prepare for the worst.

The 1918-19 pandemic has cast a long shadow over the current health emergency. That virus circled the world, eventually infecting nearly everyone and killing at least 50 million people.

Pandemic lite?

Jeffery Taubenberger, the National Institutes of Health researcher who reconstructed the 1918 influenza virus, said he is growing the new swine-flu virus — H1N1 — in his lab.

"We're very early on in figuring out what makes this virus tick. I am loath to make predictions about what an influenza virus that mutates so rapidly will do," he said. But he thinks it will spread across the planet: "My prediction is that this strain will continue to spread, and it is very likely to become a pandemic virus, if it's not already a pandemic now. That does not mean that this has to be a very severe pandemic like 1918."

Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, said the situation is analogous to forecasting a hurricane when meteorologists know only that there is a high-low pressure gradient in the Atlantic. "Anyone who gives you an answer right now, do not listen to them about anything ... ," Osterholm said.

WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl noted Friday that the public may misunderstand the word "pandemic." The term refers to where an illness spreads, not its severity.

A major unknown is the swine-flu virus' "case-fatality rate": the fraction of infected people who die. For the Spanish influenza, it was 2 to 2.5 percent for the U.S. as a whole, but in military camps and on troop ships, the rate was a brutal 7 to 10 percent, and in some Inuit villages it soared to 70 percent.

The other two flu pandemics of the 20th century were far milder. The Asian influenza of 1957-58 had a fatality rate of 0.2-0.5, and the rate during the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 was lower, about 0.1 percent, close to what it is for seasonal flu.

In a typical U.S. seasonal flu season, about 200,000 people are hospitalized and 36,000 people die.

The case-fatality rate of the swine flu will become certain only when epidemiologists can track its behavior from the moment it arrives in a population, a difficult task under the best circumstances, which the current circumstances in Mexico aren't.

The question is how many other people contracted influenza but never got very sick. Researchers must draw blood from a sample of people in affected towns and cities to estimate how many people were infected and never knew it.

Early signs favorable

The early signs from the U.S. and a few European countries where the strain is spreading suggest it is not unusually dangerous, as there have been few deaths. If that continues to be true, it may help explain the mysteriously high mortality in Mexico. It may be that Mexico already has had hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of cases, all but the most serious hidden in the "noise" of background illness in a crowded population.

Mexican scientists also reported Friday that the virus' ability to spread from person to person is "fairly low" and that it's no more infectious than normal seasonal flu.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Limiting Parents' Rights in Medical Decision Making

As we go along this path of McKenna's health issues, I am faced with a new consideration - she will turn 14 this year. There is this "thing" that gives a child the right at 14 to keep their counseling appts confidential from their parents, to have a say in their own medical decisions... yet the child is still a minor for 4 years and the parents are still attempting to help them move through adolescent in an effort to meet adulthood sure footed and solid. There are reasons for this, such as, if a child is being abused by a parent, there is a need to protect that child from the influence and give them a safe place to talk or seek help. I understand this but feel, once again, in trying to meet some issue in our world, the pendulum swings sharply - too sharply - to the other side. As the doctor mentions wanting to prescribe a medication for McKenna, I - as responsible parent - ask to wait and investigate what it is further. I find that it is related to a medication I have taken in the past and had a serious reaction to. So my inclination is to not approve this medication. She is 13, what happens when she turns 14? I suddenly am faced with a looming question of whether at 14, the doctors would be able to circumvent my approval of medication prescribed for my daughter. I still don't know, I am still investigating this but came across the interesting and concerning article below.


By Lee Black, LLM

"The law’s inquiry into parental competence to provide medical care for a child does not stop at assessing their physical and mental ability to do so; it also examines their willingness to make medically appropriate decisions. The decision of a physically and mentally competent parent to pursue a particular path of treatment may, for example, not accord with the best interests of the child, particularly if a child is not of an age where he or she can contribute to the process. Parents have a legal obligation to refrain from actions that may harm their child. Medical decision making, though, has a certain ambiguity—when does a particular choice indicate that the parent is unable to decide on appropriate care? Religious objections to treatment have a long history of acceptance and, while not absolute, can at times be codified into law [1]. Objections motivated by other beliefs may not receive the same protections and may cause parental objection to specific treatment to be overturned by a court or other authority with more ease than objections based on religious beliefs.

Religious objections
The Supreme Court of the United States has long upheld the right of parents to make decisions for their children based on religious grounds. Generally, when the physical or mental health of the child is not at stake, states and courts defer to the decisions of the parents. For medical decisions, mental or physical health will always be at stake, so a different balancing process must be employed to ensure that the state carries out its duty to protect its citizens but does not infringe on the rights granted to individuals by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

When attempting to declare a given medical treatment decision inappropriate, the state has a high burden of proof because of the great value placed on autonomous parental decision making. The court must weigh the rights of a parent against the interests of the child. One important factor in this process is the expected outcome of the illness or disease: if the proposed medical treatment has a good chance of success and the predicted outcome without treatment is death, courts are more likely to intervene and overrule parental decisions; if the proposed medical treatment does not have a high likelihood of success or the predicted outcome is not death, courts frequently uphold the decision of parents. Generally, it is only when the child’s life is at risk that the weighing of interests favors the child and the government authority that is asserting the child’s rights.

In one litigated case of religious objections to care by Christian Scientists, the interests of the parents, the child and the state were weighed with consideration of a state law that permitted medical decision making to be influenced by religious doctrine. The Supreme Court of Delaware in Newmark v. Williams landed on the side of the parents. The child in Newmark was diagnosed with Burkitt’s lymphoma and was given a 40 percent chance of survival if he obtained chemotherapy treatments. His parents decided that, rather than allowing an uncertain and painful medical treatment, they would seek treatment through their church [2]. The state objected and filed for temporary custody of the child.

The court determined that the parents were within their rights to forgo the treatment. According to the court,

…the spiritual treatment exemptions reflect, in part, “the policy of this State with respect to the quality of life” a desperately ill child might have in the caring and loving atmosphere of his or her family, versus the sterile hospital environment demanded by physicians seeking to prescribe excruciating, and life-threatening, treatments of doubtful efficacy [3].

The determining factor was that the treatment proposed by the child’s physician had only a 40 percent chance of success. From the court’s discussion of other legal precedents, if a treatment was more likely to succeed than fail (i.e., had greater than 50 percent chance of success), the state could be justified in gaining custody of a child to obtain medical treatment over the religious objections of his or her parents, although the court made no definitive statement on this matter.

In a more recent case, the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma came to a different conclusion based on a set of facts much more favorable to the state. In the Matter of D.R., the child suffered from seizure activity and developmental difficulties. While in physical therapy to address these problems, she experienced a severe seizure, after which her parents discontinued therapy and sought no other treatment. The state intervened, alleging medical neglect by the parents because the child’s condition was potentially life-threatening.

The court decided in favor of the state based on the severity of the medical problem, the likelihood of success of the proposed treatment and the limited potential harm of the treatment. It was “well-settled that the state may order medical treatment for a nonlife threatening condition, notwithstanding the objection of the parents on religious grounds, if the treatment will, in all likelihood, temporarily or permanently solve a substantial medical problem” [4]. The court recognized that the state could not order treatment over religious objection of the parents if the treatment was “risky, extremely invasive, toxic with many side effects, and/or offers a low chance of success” [5]. This decision, consistent with Newmark, illustrates the difficulties in determining who should make medical decisions for a child.

Nonreligious objections
Religious objection has a firm foundation in the Constitution and legal precedent. It is much more difficult for courts to justify parental refusal of treatment for reasons not based in recognized religion (a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but consistently used). For example, if a parent prevented needed care because of a fear of nonexistent risks, the state would be able to intervene with little opposition by courts. Parents have more flexibility in choosing among different treatments that all have some scientific validity; they need not choose the best available treatment. The caveat here is what constitutes valid treatment—courts do not always agree on this.

For decades, laetrile, a chemical compound found in various foods, has been considered by some to be an effective form of cancer treatment. Mainstream medicine has never embraced laetrile use, and there have been no clinical trials of its efficacy [6]. Yet, within a month two courts in the Northeast decided cases based on the use of laetrile and metabolic therapy and came to very different conclusions about its use.

The case of Joseph Hofbauer in New York concerned the definition of “neglected child” [7]. Joseph had Hodgkin’s disease, and his physician recommended that he be seen by a specialist for further treatment that could include radiation or chemotherapy. Joseph’s parents rejected the recommendation and took him to Jamaica where he received a course of metabolic therapy that included the use of laetrile. After his return to the U.S., the state sought to remove Joseph from the custody of his parents on the grounds that failure to enroll him in conventional treatments constituted neglect. A court order authorized continued treatment with metabolic therapy on the condition that Joseph be monitored by a second physician.

At trial, there was voluminous testimony concerning treatments for cancer. Physicians for the state testified that metabolic therapy was inadequate and ineffective for the treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. Physicians for the parents testified that metabolic therapy was beneficial and effective, although they did not preclude the use of conventional treatments that the parents sought to avoid. A scientist testified to an animal study conducted on mice showing the effectiveness of laetrile and other substances. Both sides admitted to the dangerous potential side effects of conventional treatments.

The court began by noting that the statute pertaining to adequate medical care for children required a parent to “entrust the child’s care to that of a physician when such course would be undertaken by an ordinarily prudent and loving parent ‘solicitous for the welfare of his child and anxious to promote (the child’s) recovery’” [8]. Parents can rely on the advice of licensed physicians, because those physicians are “recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment” [9]. The question most important to this court was whether the parents provided an acceptable course of care in light of surrounding circumstances. The court determined that the parents were justified in their concern over conventional treatments, that there was medical proof of the effectiveness of laetrile and that metabolic therapy had fewer risks than radiation or chemotherapy. Therefore, Joseph was not neglected within the meaning of the statute.

A month after the New York decision, Massachusetts had occasion to answer the same question: was laetrile appropriate medical treatment? In Custody of a Minor, a three-year-old boy suffered from acute lymphocytic leukemia [10]. An earlier court decision had ordered that the child undergo chemotherapy, which was successfully completed. Thereafter, his parents discontinued his medications and the leukemia recurred. The parents sought to supplement their child’s chemotherapy with metabolic therapy, including laetrile.

Both the parents and the state introduced expert testimony pertaining to the safety and efficacy of laetrile. None of the parents’ experts claimed expertise in the area of blood diseases or leukemia. The state presented various experts in blood diseases, including the child’s physician. At an earlier hearing, a judge had concluded that “not only are the assertions concerning metabolic therapy’s alleged palliative effect unconfirmed by any well-documented evidence, but there are several alternative explanations for this observed phenomenon” [11].

The court found that the use of laetrile was potentially harmful to the child because of the possibility that it would interfere with chemotherapy and because it posed a risk of cyanide poisoning. The court also decided that “family autonomy is not absolute, and may be limited where, as here, it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of a child” [12]. The court determined that the use of laetrile in this specific case was “not consistent with good medical practice,” but it did not address the use of laetrile in all circumstances, drawing a careful distinction with Hofbauer by noting the additional testimony of laetrile’s possible effectiveness and the different type of cancer at issue in that case.

Interpreting the courts’ rulings
The end result of a court battle over the provision of medical treatment depends on the type of objection—religious or secular, the proposed treatment and the prognosis for survival with and without treatment. Religious objection to standard medical therapy is often legally valid when the treatment is more likely to fail than succeed. Respect for religion has forced courts to recognize that medical decisions are not always scientific—many people rely on faith to heal them. On the other hand, the right to refuse treatment based on religious objection is not absolute. In cases where adherence to religious tenets that prohibit standard, life-saving care, e.g., blood transfusion, would almost certainly lead to a child’s death, the courts have decided that parents cannot make martyrs of children who are too young to have consented to embrace the faith.

Objection for other reasons leads to more varied court decisions, but these objections can be overruled more easily than faith-based objections. Parents cannot refuse all medical treatment as they can if the objection is based on recognized religious doctrine. If alternatives may be successful and are less invasive than a risky standard medical treatment, courts may defer to parents. If the alternative treatment has no scientific merit, courts will most likely prevent parents from standing in the way of their child’s health.

It is important to remember that legal competence to make medical decisions for children is not just about physical or mental capacity; it is also about making appropriate, best-interest decisions. Medical neglect statutes examine whether appropriate care was provided, not how it was provided. A parent who refuses care based on an objection to treatment, whatever the basis, is just as likely to have the state intervene to make medical decisions as a parent who is not physically able to provide care or not mentally capable of making decisions.

References
For example, the Illinois Compiled Statutes define “neglected child” to exclude a child whose “parent or other person responsible for his or her welfare depends upon spiritual means through prayer alone for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care…” 325 ILCS 5/3 (2006).
Newmark v Williams, 588 A2d 1108 (Del 1990).
Newmark at 1112.
In the Matter of D.R., 20 P3d 166 , 169 (Ct App Okla 2001).
In the Matter of D.R., at 170.
National Cancer Institute. Questions and answers about laetrile/amygdalin. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdg/cam/laetrile/patient/Page2#
Section_23. Accessed August 24, 2006.
In the Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 393 NE2d 1009 (NY 1979).
In the Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, at 1013.
In the Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, at 1014.
Custody of a Minor, 393 NE2d 836 (Mass 1979).
Custody of a Minor, at 841.
Custody of a Minor, at 843.
Lee Black, LLM, is a policy analyst for the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs at the American Medical Association in Chicago, Ill. Prior To joining the AMA, he was a staff attorney with the Legislative Reference Bureau in Springfield, where he drafted legislation for the Illinois General Assembly.