|
|
America's State Religion
Sowing the Wind!!! and Reaping the Whirlwind!!!
A Pompous Decree by Judges who think they own the Constitution.
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Justice Hugo Black — Writing for the Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Justice Hugo Black — Writing for the Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
Al: In 1787, Mr. Jefferson, you were on a mission to Europe when the Constitution of the United States was written; so you had no part in writing it.
In 1802, Mr. Jefferson, the ministers of Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." President Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut
Al: In 1787, Mr. Jefferson, you were on a mission to Europe when the Constitution of the United States was written; so you had no part in writing it.
In 1802, Mr. Jefferson, the ministers of Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." President Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut
Hosea 8:7 — Federal Judges have Sown the Wind and We are Reaping the Whirlwind!!!
Separation of Church and State
Thomas Jefferson: “Author of the Declaration of Independence.”
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
“I see . . . with the deepest affliction the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards . . . the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic. . . . The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.”
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and the executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body [for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow] working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
“Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional had a right to pass a sentence . . . because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it, because that power has been confided in him by the Constitution.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
In a letter to Samuel Miller. “I consider the government of the U. S. as interdicted (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S.” (10th Amendment.)
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe any religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious authorities.”
“Our judges are as honest as other men, but not more so . . . and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." President Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” (From the Declaration of Independence).
Hosea 8:7 — Federal Judges have Sown the Wind and We are Reaping the Whirlwind!!!
Separation of Church and State
Thomas Jefferson: “Author of the Declaration of Independence.”
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
“I see . . . with the deepest affliction the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards . . . the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic. . . . The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.”
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and the executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body [for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow] working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
“Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional had a right to pass a sentence . . . because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it, because that power has been confided in him by the Constitution.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
In a letter to Samuel Miller. “I consider the government of the U. S. as interdicted (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S.” (10th Amendment.)
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe any religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious authorities.”
“Our judges are as honest as other men, but not more so . . . and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." President Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” (From the Declaration of Independence).
The Court's Despotic Twist on Jefferson's First Amendment Statement.
The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." From President Thomas Jefferson's response to The Danbury Baptists' letter addressed to him.
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America. Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere. Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson's draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Our form of govt is from bottom up not top down. The Govt cannot dictate our religion but religious people can have a strong bearing on the govt. govt of the people etc. consent of the govt etc.
The New American
Monday, 03 October 2011 The War Against Christianity in America Written by Sam Blumenfeld The origin of the war against Christianity in the United States can be traced back to the early days of the public school movement when Unitarians, Owenite socialists and atheists, and Hegelian pantheists vehemently rejected the God-centered worldview of the Founding Fathers and sought to secularize education and substitute salvation through scientific education than by salvation through Christ.
However, it wasn’t until the turn of the last century and the rise of the progressive education movement that the war in America took on the militancy which characterizes it today. The progressives were, for the most part, members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the religion of their fathers and transferred their faith to science, evolution, and psychology.
The scientific method provided the means to acquire unlimited knowledge of the material world, evolution explained the origin of life and man, and psychology provided the scientific means of studying man’s nature and controlling his behavior. There was no need for supernatural religion in the progressive scheme of things.
Early in the 20th century, the progressives embarked on a messianic mission to change America from a capitalist, individualistic, and believing society into a socialist, collectivist, atheist or humanist society. They were motivated by the need not only to prove the nonexistence and/or irrelevance of God, but to deal with the age-old problem of evil: what caused it and how it could be eliminated.
According to the Bible, evil behavior in man is the result of his sinful nature. Man’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden resulted in his fall from grace, his loss of immortality, and his coming under the influence of Satan. The New Testament teaches us that only by obedience to God’s law and salvation through Christ can man save himself from the horrible consequences of his sinful nature.
The progressives naturally rejected this explanation which, to them, was little more than mythology and fairy tale. To them, there was no God and man was merely an animal, a product of evolution, neither innately good nor evil. The causes of evil, they believed, were ignorance, poverty and social injustice, and once these were eliminated, a just, crime-free, utopian society could emerge.
All that had to be done was to identify the causes of social injustice, and a scientific cure to man’s social ills could be contrived. According to the progressives, it was our capitalistic, free-enterprise economic system with its emphasis on private property and individualism which caused social injustice. It created inequality of wealth. And underpinning all of this was the Christian religion with its libelous view of human nature, its emphasis on the supremacy of God’s law over man’s law, its support of the notion of unalienable rights and private property.
Thus, the progressives declared war on Christianity. Why? Because it posed the most formidable obstacle to their entire revolutionary program. But their aim was not merely to destroy Christianity, but to replace it with a new secular religion, Humanism. In 1908, John Dewey wrote, in an essay entitled “Religion and Our Schools”:
Those who approach religion and education from the side of unconstrained reflection…are of necessity aware of the tremendous transformation of intellectual attitude effected by the systematic denial of the supernatural….
It may be that the symptoms of religious ebb as conveniently interpreted are symptoms of the coming of a fuller and deeper religion….So far as education is concerned, those who believe in religion as a natural expression of human experience must devote themselves to the development of the ideas of life which lie implicit in our still new science and in our still newer democracy….It is their business to do what they can to prevent all public educational agencies from being employed in ways which inevitably impede the recognition of the spiritual import of science and democracy, and hence of that type of religion which will be the fine flower of the modern spirit’s achievement.
The war on Christianity worked its way downward from the graduate schools of education and psychology where John Dewey and his colleagues trained future educators, until finally it reached the local schools through the new teachers, administrators and bureaucrats in the state departments of education. Traditional subjects like history and geography were now presented as Social Studies, with an emphasis on the social aspects of the subjects. Traditional views were eliminated in the new curriculum and textbooks, and the new humanist worldview was inserted in its place.
With the help of the courts and the ACLU, the humanists have been able to eliminate every manifestation of religious practice in the public school, including school prayer, silent or vocal, grace before meals, benedictions at graduations, references to Christianity in school art or decoration, biblical themes in textbooks.
There is an ongoing battle over “equal access” — whether Christians even have the right to religion expression during extracurricular activity or whether public schools can be used for religious purposes after school hours.
Nor have the humanists limited their war on Christianity to the public school. They want to expunge Biblical religion from all government institutions, including court houses where monuments depicting the Ten Commandments are considered to be violations of the separation of church and state. In short, humanists don’t want freedom of religion but freedom from religion, since any public manifestation of Biblical religion is an affront to their atheist sensibilities and causes them emotional distress.
When seen in this context, it is obvious that the public schools have become not religion-neutral but militantly anti-Christian. Not only are Christmas carols and Christmas plays banned in public schools, but a holiday like Halloween (which was instituted in Catholic counties such as Ireland as "All Hallowed Ev'n" to mark the eve of All Saints Day) has been divorced from its spiritual roots and regressed backward to include pre-Christian, pagan rituals and celebrated almost as an occult religious holiday.
But the humanists have done more than simply taken over the public schools. They’ve erected fortresses of humanist culture in the state universities and colleges where many Christian students become humanists, atheists, nihilists, or anything else to replace their traditional religious beliefs.
The humanists have also captured many great private universities and colleges originally founded by Christian denominations, but which have now totally forgotten their religious origins.
But the war against Biblical religion is hardly over. Private shopping malls have made Christmas a major celebration to promote sales of Christmas gifts. Millions of parents still take their children to meet Santa Claus, which is not a religious event but one that bolsters Christmas as a religious holiday, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. Greeting card companies still produce a plethora of Christmas cards, some with religious themes, others with seasonal wishes for a happy new year.
Also, it is obvious that humanism has failed to become the great new religion replacing belief in the supernatural God. Huge churches in the South are filled with thousands of worshippers with arms raised in praise of Jesus Christ, and the Daystar television channel airs religious programming 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So John Dewey’s expectation that traditional Biblical religion would fade into the sunset just hasn’t happened.
As for eliminating ignorance, poverty, and social injustice, it seems that humanist indoctrination and legislation has done just the opposite. Our dumbed-down school curriculums are deliberately creating more ignorance and functional illiteracy among the young than ever before. The war against poverty declared by progressive Democrats has given us more poverty than ever. And inequality of wealth, supposedly a form of social injustice, has not been diminished by any progressive legislative program. In other words, everything the progressives hoped to achieve through the implementation of their humanist philosophy has been a total failure.
And that is why a majority of Americans are returning to the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers (who, though they varied in denomination, shared a certain common orthodoxy), who created the greatest, freest, and richest nation in human history based on the religious principles to be found nowhere else but in Biblical religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.There would not be a single solitary Founding Father, including Thomas Jefferson, who would agree with the false interpretation of the First Amendment that the anti-Christian Left has foisted on this country by deliberately misinterpreting Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Even if Jefferson's letter were something other than a less eloquently worded attempt to rephrase the First Amendment (and that's all it is), his letter certainly wouldn't trump the Constitution. Moreover, in Jefferson's day, states had official religions, the Bible was taught in public schools, and Jefferson himself attended the regularly scheduled worship services on Sundays in the House of Representatives. If the Founding Fathers didn’t find any of those things to be in conflict with the First Amendment, then certainly having the 10 Commandments on a courthouse wall or kids singing Away in a Manager at Christmas time shouldn’t be a problem. To turn the First Amendment on its head to use as a bludgeon against the religious freedom of Christians is a despicable act.
Thomas Jefferson: “Author of the Declaration of Independence.”
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
“I see . . . with the deepest affliction the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards . . . the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic. . . . The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.”
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and the executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body [for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow] working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
“Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional had a right to pass a sentence . . . because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it, because that power has been confided in him by the Constitution.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
In a letter to Samuel Miller. “I consider the government of the U. S. as interdicted (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S.” (10th Amendment.)
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe any religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious authorities.”
“Our judges are as honest as other men, but not more so . . . and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." President Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” (From the Declaration of Independence).
Add more sections to body text with more subheadlines or delete if not needed.
Add more sections to body text with more subheadlines or delete if not needed.
Add more sections to body text with more subheadlines or delete if not needed.
Instructions: to be deleted when confident to do so.
1) Must have a spacer element above header images. (First header image element supplied)
2) Image options > Drag and drop 2nd image element on top of 1st for two, 3rd between the
two for three, or text element between the two.
3) Write PageTitle/Headline, First Subheadline, and body text.
4) Delete Instructions text element as soon as confident to do so.
1) Must have a spacer element above header images. (First header image element supplied)
2) Image options > Drag and drop 2nd image element on top of 1st for two, 3rd between the
two for three, or text element between the two.
3) Write PageTitle/Headline, First Subheadline, and body text.
4) Delete Instructions text element as soon as confident to do so.