Policy On Joint Sponsorship: Fill & Download for Free

The invasion of Mexico proper in 1847 clouds the issue. The nearly empty US Southwest had come under US control almost effortlessly in 1846. New Mexico had become alienated from Mexico City over half a century and reoriented to the Comanche Empire and trade with the Mississippi Valley. What NM feared was Texas’s claim, and NM was ready to ally with the US federal government and Northern US. Northern California had extremely small Hispanic population and Anglo-Americans were already becoming a majority. Most of the land of the Southwest had never had any Hispanic settlement.How did the Southwest become Mexican territory? Since the 1500s Spain had claimed much of North America without settling or even communicating with it. Settlement of California only started in 1776 when the US was already becoming independent. New Mexico was wiped out once by the Pueblo Revolt, was reestablished and became the only large Hispanic colony in the future USA (80,000 in 1846, comparable to the number of Anglos in Texas at the time) but had little contact with Mexico City. Missions in Texas were destroyed by the Comanche, and the Apache also raided into northern Mexico.Not until the 1821 Adams–Onís Treaty did the step boundary familiar from maps appear. The treaty was with Spain who then lost power in New Spain that year before ratification. The following First Mexican Empire was the first state to introduce the name Mexico for the country not just for Mexico City. Spain did not recognize Mexico until 1836 after the liberal First Mexican Republic was overthrown. Mexico recognized the Adams-Onís border only with the Treaty of Limits (Mexico–United States) entering into force in 1832, and by that year the Anglo settlers in Texas already called for reform at the Convention of 1832 and expelled the small Mexican garrison from eastern Texas. Setting the border that far east in the path of Anglo settlement had not been a sustainable idea.How had John Quincy Adams and Luis de Onís come up with this nonviable border across territory mostly still far from settlement? Adams had two main goals. One was rectifying the mess in Florida which was also nominally Spanish but almost empty and lawless. General Andrew Jackson had already invaded the territory, even hanging two British traders, and American settlers were encroaching. Adams did not want the young USA to get a reputation as a lawless nation invading and stealing territory. But ironically, he wound up drawing a line that American settlers would cross in less than a decade.Adams’s other aim for the treaty was acquiring the paper Spanish claim to Oregon Country where they had barely landed for two centuries then the Bourbon flurry of Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest concentrated on Alaska and Vancouver Island. This was hailed as a victory giving the USA eventual possibility of two coasts and connecting both Asian and European commerce. But in fact the USA and UK had just agreed on joint occupation of Oregon in the Treaty of 1818 negotiated in London by Albert Gallatin, and the unrealistic Russian Ukase of 1821 claiming the coast all the way to the Columbia River would soon be countered by President Monroe’s anti-imperialist speech (dubbed a “Doctrine” decades later) and the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 limiting Russian claims to what is now Alaska. The British probably didn’t care whether the USA had the former Spanish claim.Adams, a Yankee, had made a Northwest claim while renouncing Texas. Southerners, reportedly including Jefferson, on the other hand thought the Louisiana Purchase had included a tenuous French claim to Texas from La Salle’s original expedition, and that Adams had signed it away.What were Onís’s motivations? The Spanish Empire had had a grand history and vast nominal claims, peaking as late as 1783–1803 with everything west of the Mississippi plus East and West Florida, and any loss of even empty claims would be hard to sell at home. Onís had been unwilling to surrender even this much, so that Adams felt this was an achievement. But both underestimated the rapid pace of Anglo settlers’ trek west. Meanwhile the Comanche and Apache had actually been pushing Hispanic settlement back, leaving Texas nearly empty. Finally the Spanish army itself managed to kill many of the few Hispanic Tejanos with forced marches and executions in retaliation for the independence movements from 1810 on, leaving as few as 2000 left by 1821.It was quickly apparent that not reaching any treaty with Spain would have been better. Almost none of the eventually predominant populations had reached the region yet, and it was not apparent what a final or even stable result would be. The major settler populations there were already alienated from Mexico City which had done little for them for half a century or more by 1846.Why did the USA move fast in the 1840s after decades of more cautious policy? The potential of California became apparent only late in the game, decades later than Oregon. It became a race between the US and UK and even France initially to grab the prize containing less than 10000 Californio settlers already nearly independent of Mexico. There was no chance of it staying officially Mexican except possibly nominally under sponsorship of Britain or perhaps France. If Britain had predominated, most likely a larger British Columbia would have occupied the coast down to Mexico, and later confederated with the rest of British North America, eventually leaving a federation of North America in the north and west of the continent and Hawaii, tempting New England to join, and a smaller, unicoastal, Southern-centered USA — something like the Jesusland map circulated by frustrated blue-staters after the 2004 election. The great bicoastal power influencing Asia would be this North America in the Commonwealth of Nations, not the USA, with history diverging as early as Commodore Perry’s opening of Japan in 1854.

Joint project of Nirmanlas and Udasis living in Calcutta, Mahanats of Patna and British orientalists under the sponsorship of East India Company. They took the true writings of the Guru which were various scriptures gathered by Bhai Mani Singh and Guru's followers, then added additional chapters of their own writings and compiled it as Dasam Granth in 19th century. Due to constant changes in order to create one finalized granth, 32 adaptations occurred of the book, which all exist today.Letter (Zafarnama) in Persian, that was written to Emperor Aurangzeb and various texts, verses, hymns (Shabads), poetry (Var Sri Bhagauti Ji Ki and others), Jaap and some chapters are truly attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. On the other hand, in regards to some additional extra chapters, there is overwhelming strong evidence that goes against the authorship of Dasam Granth by Guru Gobind Singh.Dasam Granth is nothing but a compendium of Puranic literature whereas Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism, its scriptures and the Sanskrit language. Dasam Granth totally repudiates Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) which was encapsulated by Guru Gobind Singh in his “Nash Doctrine or Five Freedoms” as a must for the Khalsa. The Khalsa should annihilate (nash) the influence of Varna Ashrarma Dharama/Caste System. In other words Khalsa should be completely free from influence of Varna Ashrarma Dharama (dharm nash); Hindu rituals/ceremonies/formalities (karam nash); superstition (bharam nash); family lineage (kul nash) and caste-based occupation restrictions (krit nash). So why would Guru Gobind Singh write himself or ask any one else to write or approve of any writing that repudiates Gurmat and his Nash doctrine?Guru Gobind Singh’s contemporaries and close associates like Sainapati, Nanad Lal, Prahlad Singh, Daya Singh and Sewa Das make no mention of Guru Gobind Singh’s writings though they mention Guru Granth and Guru Panth or Guru Khalsa pointing out that Guru Gobind Singh abolished the personal line of Guruship by vesting it jointly on the Sikh community (Panth) and the Granth (Aad Guru Granth Sahib). Had Guru Guru Gobind Singh written such a large number of miscellaneous works as the contents of modern so-called Dasam Granth, it is difficult to imagine that Sainapati, Nanad Lal, Daya Singh, Prahlad Singh and Sewa Das would have failed to notice them? Further even the Rahitnamas attributed to Guru Gobind Singh’s close associates, Nand Lal, Daya Singh and Prahlad Singh make no mention of Dasam Granth or any of Guru Gobind’s writings while emphasizing Guru Granth and Guru Panth. Furthermore, Guru Gobind Singh abolished personal line of Guruship when he vested Guruship jointly on the Granth and the Khalsa (entire Sikh community).The available European sources on Sikhs up to the end of 18th century mention that Sikhs had only one scripture, Granth; the visitors to Amritsar and Patna Sahib saw only one book (Granth) and make no mention of any other book. Besides, the book named “Dasam Granth” was not known to the Sikhs in Punjab even in the nineteenth century. For example, Cunningham (1849), Macauliffe (1909) and Bhangoo (1841) do not mention any book/granth called Dasam Granth. Sixty-one years after the death of Guru Gobind Singh, Kesar Singh Chibber in his Bansavalinama (Punjabi) (1769) mentions Bachittar Natak. He quotes from chapter 6 of the Bachittar Natak he had, a different version of Apni Katha (autobiography) which is found in chapter 6 of the current version of Bachittar Natak. His version does not have the first five stanzas of the current version and he does not call it Apni Katha. About four decades later, John Malcolm mentions in his Sketch of the Sikhs published in 1812 that “Vichitra Natac” is a part of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth”. And he quotes the translation of first four stanzas of the current Apni Katha starting with: “I now declare my own history and the multifarious austerities which I have performed.” This shows that Chibber’s Bachittar Natak is different from Maclolm’s Vachitra Natac. However, Malcolm makes no mention of the other contents of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth”. It seems that Kesar Singh Chibber was not aware of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” otherwise he would have mentioned it in Bansavalinama. On the other hand Malcolm had access to the spurious “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” which was being compiled under the name of Guru Gobind Singh. Its contents were slowly introduced to the Sikh community under a well-planned scheme in the nineteenth century through Udasis and Nirmalas who were the mahants and pujaris (priests) of Gurdwaras and Dharamsalas. And there were 32 different versions of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” floating in Punjab in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It is only after the “Sodhak Committee” report of 1897 that the modern version “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” edited from the 32 different versions was published under the title of Dasam Granth.The proponents of Varna Ashrama Dharama/Caste System were opposed to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) right from the time of Guru Nanak and they tried to sabotage the Sikh movement and collaborated with the Mughls rulers who launched vigorous campaigns to exterminate the Sikhs in the first half of the eighteenth century. There is also strong evidence that British colonists and missionaries had vested political and religious interest in the subversion of Sikh theology, history and traditions in order to subjugate them and convert them to Christianity, and to use them to evangelize the Indian subcontinent. Although, Kesar Singh Chibber does not say who authored the Bachittar Natak he had or from where he got it, but he has left enough fingerprints that make a compelling suggestion/case that Bachittar Natak is the work of the same mindset that produced Puranic literature. Like Puranas, Bachittar Natak is also full of Brahmanical ceremonies, formalities, beliefs, unbelievable and chimerical tales and lies.While the Brahmans like Chibber claimed that Sikhs were Hindus and the Khalsa was created to protect Brahmins and Brahmanism, the Christians had their own agenda - they wanted to subjugate and evangelize the Sikhs is evident from the records of East India Company and the writings of orientalists and Christian missionaries.Wilkins’s work on the Sikhs, being one of the earliest accounts that dealt with issues other than military and political, was a long-standing primary source for future writers. He presents an unprejudiced view of the Sikhs and their practices, so much so that even amongst later missionary activity in India, his influence quite drastically informed views on Christian missionary policy on the Sikhs.In a 1814 article titled “Important Documents Relating to the Seeks in India,” Wilkins’s account was quoted along with extracts from the Edinburgh Review of Sketch of the Sikhs by Lt. Col. Malcolm. The introduction reads: “To those who wish to propagate Christianity throughout the world, it must be gratifying to hear of any facts or circumstances favourable to that object.” Then follow extensive extracts with article concluding: “It has not been our object to give a particular history of this sect, which has become a nation in India; but to mention such facts as affords ground to hope that the efforts to introduce Christianity among the natives in that part of the world will not go in vain.” It continues further, “The success of Nanac shows that the habits and prejudices of the Hindoos are not so immutably fixed as many in Great Britain have imagined.The pacific character of Nanac, and the approach of his doctrines to those of Christianity, are circumstances remarkable and important; and we need more information on the subject, than we now possess, to account for them without the aid of inspiration. As the dispersion of Jews facilitated the spread of gospel among Gentiles in various parts of the world, so the existence of Seeks may yet facilitate thespread of gospel in India. It is devoutly to be desired, that nothing may be done on the part of Christians to introduce their religion among the nations of India, which shall tend to impress a belief that Christianity is less tolerant, mild and pacific, or in any respect less worthy of reception than the religion of Nanac.Besides, the account we have of the principle doctrines of the Seeks, should excite our gratitude to the common Father of our race, that he has, in one way or another, diffused some correct ideas of himself, more extensively, than has been generally known or supposed by Christians”. Further, it should be noted that East India Company became the ruler of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa after defeating Siraj ud-Daula at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Because of its great historical significance, East India Company took control of the management of Harmandir at Patna in 1810.The mahants and pujaris were paid by the government. Mahant Sukha Singh (1766-1838, the author of Gurbilas Dasvin Patshahi) received annual pension and supply of opium from the government. John Malcolm in Sketch of the Sikhs says that a Sikh priest of the Nirmala order living in Calcutta explained the religious texts to him and Dr. Leyden provided him with the English translations.Both Brahmins and Christians wanted to Hinduise Sikhs, though for different purposes. The former wanted to make Sikhs part and parcel of Hindu society whereas the latter wanted to subjugate and evangelize them, and then use converted Sikhs to evangelize the Indian subcontinent. And both realized that there was one formidable obstacle in their path to accomplish their objectives, and that was the unshakable faith of the Sikhs in their living Guru, Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS). So in order to alienate the Sikh masses from the AGGS, a parallel granth, “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” was compiled from Puranic literature under the name of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth and the last Sikh Guru.Writing and compiling of “Dasam Padshah Ka Granth” was a joint project of Nirmanlas and Udasis living in Calcutta, Mahanat Sukha Singh of Patna and British orientalists under the sponsorship of East India Company.Source: Study and research of various sources, particularly from:British Library - India Historical RecordsResearch and study of Dasam GranthStudy of John Malcolm's records and sketches.The Edinburgh review of critical journalDiscussions with Scholars in AmritsarStudy of information provided by Cunningham (1849), Macauliffe (1909) and Bhangoo (1841).Further Reading:The Sikh Revolution on Dasam GranthThe truth about the anti-Sikh agenda of those promoting the Dasam GranthAn Academic Look at Contradictions in Story of “Dasam Granth”

No. The courts have repeatedly determined that the national motto “In God we trust” does not violate either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.In 1970, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a decision on Stefan Ray Aronow vs. United States of America et al, a case in which Mr. Aronow was suing on this exact question. The court said he had no standing to make such a suit because he could show no harm caused to him by the motto, but they went on to address the question. They said:“It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.”The motto does not identify any specific religion or faith. There is no preference to a denomination shown and there is no tangible benefit provided to any sect.The court also cited the Supreme Court decision in Engel vs. Vitale (1962), which said:“There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.”The Supreme Court had decided that such observations were part of the national heritage and were not calls to or impingement on religious exercise.The Aronow decision went on to clarify:“It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted "In God We Trust" or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan. In fact, such secular uses of the motto was viewed as sacrilegious and irreverent by President Theodore Roosevelt. Yet, Congress has directed such uses. While "ceremonial" and "patriotic" may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has "spiritual and psychological value" and "inspirational quality."”They also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in McGowen vs. Maryland that said that laws of religious origin were not violations of the First Amendment if they had secular purpose, today, and did not show evidence of government using coercive power in exercise of religion. The Ninth Circuit said no such evidence exists in the case of the national motto. They went on to say:“The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.Each value judgment under the Religion Clauses must therefore turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so. Adherence to the policy of neutrality that derives from an accommodation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses has prevented the kind of involvement that would tip the balance toward government control of churches or governmental restraint on religious practice.”The US Supreme Court explicitly addressed this question in Wooley vs. Maynard (1977), in which they wrote:“It has been suggested that today's holding will be read as sanctioning the obliteration of the national motto, "In God We Trust" from United States coins and currency. That question is not before us today, but we note that currency, which is passed from hand to hand, differs in significant respects from an automobile, which is readily associated with its operator. Currency is generally carried in a purse or pocket, and need not be displayed to the public. The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the national motto.”