Seems a little US-centric to me. Jeopardy's run from 1964- to present with a ten year gap is impressive, and I know it says 'one of the...' but in the interests of Trivia there are a number of UK based shows that beat or equal it, and I'm sure other countries can boast likewise: Round Britain Quiz (since 1947, radio), University Challenge (1962), A Question of Sport (1970) and Mastermind (1972, but with a few years gap) are the obvious ones.

I guess we haven't had quite the scandal here that the US has with quiz shows in the fifties/sixties.

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Yes, you are correct. This was the point I was trying to make that, in light of what the founders said and did, that the way the establishment clause has been interpreted in recent decades could not be accurate. The founders had no issue with government endorsement of Christianity; in fact they frequently endorsed it. On that point the evidence is overwhelming.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

I don't think the founders intended any of this. The constitution was written 11 years later, after many of those state constitutions were written. Written by the same people who had written the state constitutions. Considering that there was no action to enforce the interpretation we have today, but that we see quite the opposite, I don't see any justification for thinking they did intend it. The establishment clause was never actually applied this way until the 1960, which in itself was based on a supreme court decision in 1947 involving a school district using public funds to transport kids to a private religious school.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

I think it's important to understand that it wasn't written out of fear of Christian theism, as some people are trying to say today. It was understood that Christian theism was the default doctrinal state religion. Neither did the founders write it to be inclusive of other doctrinal religions, like Islam and Hinduism, or something like atheism. They wrote it, as you are saying, to prevent any federal takeover of a particular denomination of Christian theism. It was written for denominational religion, not doctrinal religion. A fight between denominations could have torn this country apart. It scarcely needed to said though that Christian theism was the default doctrinal religion of this country.

>> ^Barbar:

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"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, and 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 and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Winston Churchill: (1947 House of Commons)

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

In reply to this comment by geo321:
Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S_-OLLvLl4

In reply to this comment by ant:
*dead and can't find a replacement.

No.

Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S_-OLLvLl4

In reply to this comment by ant:
*dead and can't find a replacement.

From Wikipedia:

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...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."[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Kinda Relevant

(Sorry for double-post)

Good point, a hand-held radio is likely a good assumption but not possible.

Bell Laboratories demonstrated the first transistor on December 23, 1947.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_radio

Regency TR-1 — the first transistor radio (circa 1954)
http://people.msoe.edu/~reyer/regency/

This clip was filmed in 1928! (according to the post.)
So the next thing to ask would be, "Is the footage authentic?"



>> ^Edgeman2112:

Could it be a handheld radio and she be hard of hearing?

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #1947 (supplied by member mentality) - video declared dead by member lucky760.

Israel was a strange country. In the summer and fall of 1992 you'd have found me in either Tel Aviv or within the walls of the old city of Jerusalem. I often went for long walks in the evenings and it happened several times that on Allenby Street or maybe Dizengoff that an Israeli would strike up a conversation and then quickly jump to explain how "we are the same you and me, but the Arabs are animals." Or it was dogs. Or cockroaches. It always shocked me and I'd look at my watch and say something about being late.

I'd been having a wonderful time playing backgammon and chain-smoking Nelsons with the Palestinian and Egyptian friends I'd made at the open-sided cafes in Arab east Jerusalem.

Israeli racism is not unique. Franz Fanon wrote the definitive work on the racism of colonialism. (The Wretched of the Earth)

Gabriel Ash is an Israeli journalist, originally from Romania. Ash's article "Diagnosing Benny Morris: The Mind of a European Settler" is a lucid and powerful indictment.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ash0126.htm


*******

Israeli historian Benny Morris crossed a new line of shame when he put his academic credentials and respectability in the service of outlining the "moral" justification for a future genocide against Palestinians.

Benny Morris is the Israeli historian most responsible for the vindication of the Palestinian narrative of 1948. The lives of about 700,000 people were shattered as they were driven from their homes by the Jewish militia (and, later, the Israeli army) between December 1947 and early 1950. Morris went through Israeli archives and wrote the day by day account of this expulsion, documenting every "ethnically cleansed" village and every recorded act of violence, and placing each in the context of the military goals and perceptions of the cleansers.

Israel's apologists tried in vain to attack Morris' professional credibility. From the opposite direction, since he maintained that the expulsion was not "by design," he was also accused of drawing excessively narrow conclusions from the documents and of being too naive a reader of dissimulating statements. Despite these limitations, Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugees Problem, 1947-1949 is an authoritative record of the expulsion.

*******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Zevon

Warren William Zevon (January 24, 1947 – September 7, 2003) was an American rock singer-songwriter and musician noted for including his strange, sardonic opinions of life in his musical lyrics, composing songs that were sometimes humorous and often had political or historical themes.

While indiscriminate spraying of DDT is obviously stupid and dangerous, the rise in worldwide malaria rates in response to the restrictions on DDTs use have killed hundreds of thousands to millions of humans.

Now, unfortunately, it's too late. Like not using all of one's prescribed antibiotics, we allowed mosquitoes to develop a resistance to DDT when we stopped using it and it doesn't work anymore (at least not as well).

By the early 1960s we had malaria cases in India down to almost zero from 75 Million in 1947. Sri Lanka went from 2.8 million cases in 1946 to 17 cases in 1963. Malaria was on the verge of extinction in these places.

Then we lost DDT thanks to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". By 1976 there were 6.4 million cases in India. Today it sits between 2 and 3 million cases a year and India is one of the luckier ones. Throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa more than 50% of all children are infected. In Zambia, in 2005, there were 1353 cases for every 1000 children under 5 years old. That means a huge percent of the children are infected more than once a year.

Was DDT dangerous to spray indiscriminately? Absolutely. Was it saving millions of lives? Without a doubt.