A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience

Religions > Atheism > A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	04 Nov 2005 10:36:20 AM
Object:	A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience

Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By: Devvy
November 3, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the
Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a
strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines
advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if
afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole
adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that
each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas
Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192
[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists and
people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that there be
no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity in
Christmas next month in these united States of America. I have no doubt the
American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) is licking their chops, just
waiting to swoop down on some elementary school planning a Christmas play.
I say it's high time to make this Christmas season one of massive civil
disobedience and take a stand, just like Mrs. Rosa Parks did so many
decades ago.
This whole 'separation of church and state' garbage spewed by ignorant
people and backed by the communists in this country masquerading as
liberals over any display of Christianity or the Ten Commandments is bogus.
In 1909, Teddy Roosevelt, America's 26th president said: "I believe that
the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of
Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism."
The process to begin dismantling our Christian nation didn't take a half
century. Efforts to crush all national sovereignty, promote unity amongst
Americans of all religions, denigrate patriotism and push a Godless society
upon our land began in 1947 and the assault has been relentless. A case
known as Everson v. Board of Education [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] started it
all. Prior to this case, Americans cherished their Christian heritage,
culture and celebrations. In the Everson case, a New Jersey State law
authorized local school districts to make arrangements and rules for
transporting children to public and private nonprofit schools. One school
district, Ewing Township, directed students to use the public bus system to
get to and from school, and then reimbursed their parents for the costs.
The township made payments to parents of both public school students and
students of private, Catholic schools - payments that were permitted under
State law.
A Mr. Everson, taxpayer and misguided dupe, brought forth his silly
assertion that busing children to both public and private schools would
bring about the establishment of a state religion. Everson brought suit
against the Board of Education. In State court, he argued that money
collected as taxes for public education was being used instead to help
support students of private schools—private schools that provided religious
education on behalf of a particular church.
Everson claimed that the payments to parents of parochial school students
violated the constitutional guarantee against the "establishment" of a
religion contained in the First Amendment. The school board, Everson
believed, had violated the constitutionally guaranteed "separation of
church and state." The issue was finally addressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Tragically for this Republic, the Supreme Court hallucinated the following
in their ruling and announced that: "...the First Amendment has enacted a
'wall' between church and state that must be kept high and impregnable. We
could not approve the slightest breach thereof. We could not approve the
slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here." Huh?
Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court which had some rather
convoluted language justifying their position:
"The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment
of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the
Fourteenth, commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
.."
The Fourteenth Amendment states in part: "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States;"
The Fourteenth Amendment created a second class of "citizen", an important
distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the position
that the freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the role
of the federal courts without any authority and completely ignored the very
precise wording in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..."
Congress wasn't attempting to ‘make any law respecting an establishment of
religion' as cited in the First Amendment in the Everson case.
Please note there is no language about the states of the Union establishing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteenth
Amendment to slip through the precise wording of the First Amendment.
I have never seen a single case or attempt by Congress to establish any
religion that all Americans must worship. Never. Nor have I ever seen any
Congress attempt to establish a mandated federal religion of any
denomination. Never.
I have seen the ACLU swoop down on local school districts and threaten
lawsuits if the children put on a Christmas display on school grounds or if
a school wants to lead a prayer before a football game.
How could anyone interpret second graders or the teachers at Mainstream
America Elementary School putting up a nativity display translate to
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Congress has no presence at this elementary school displaying a Nativity
Scene attempting to make a law establishing any religion.
How could anyone interpret a school district which allows decades old
traditions like saying a prayer before a high school or college football
game as a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"? The prohibiting of a basketball coach
sponsoring prayer at end of games and practices has absolutely nothing to
with Congress standing in the locker room where a prayer is said attempting
to make any law establishing any religion.
Post the Ten Commandments on classroom wall or even a court house and the
AU or ACLU will come with a vengeance threatening a lawsuit and if they
win, you will be forced to pay their legal costs - in some case hundreds of
thousands of dollars. How could anyone interpret the posting of the Ten
Commandments in any class room or court house as a violation of "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Congress has no
presence at any school room or court house attempting to make a law
establishing any religion.
Have you ever seen Congress attempt to pass a law establishing a religion
based upon kids at a local elementary school displaying the Nativity or
jocks in the locker room saying a prayer? The whole argument is bull. In
order for there to be a violation of "church and state" relating to the
First Amendment, the House of Representatives would have to introduce
legislation which would establish a religion for the united States of
America. The Senate would introduce their version and if passed, a sitting
president would then have to sign such a bill into law establishing a
religion for these united States of America. Have you ever seen or heard
Congress ever attempt to do such a thing? Can one not see now how absurd
the Everson decision was and how destructive that decision has been for
this republic?
The list of examples is a million miles long and it all began in 1947.
Teddy Roosevelt said in 1909 that the next half century would determine
whether or not "[America] we will advance the cause of Christian
civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism." It only took 38
short years for the communists to make their move to turn America into a
godless state backed up by a few black robbed gods sitting in a court room.
It's most unfortunate the gutless, counterfeit U.S. Senate back then didn't
move immediately to impeach every judge who voted for this upside down
ruling because it was bogus then and it is bogus now.
America is a Christian nation and it was founded on Christian doctrine. To
attempt to say otherwise is to deny the very existence of our Republic and
history. Let me ask liberals and politicians a question: What if 100,000
Catholics went to Israel and demanded that Israel become a Catholic
country? . . .
[end of excerpt]
*********************************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "DocumentsIllustrative"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	05 Nov 2005 10:15:19 PM

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11mns2vanc08e62@corp.supernews.com...

On 4 Nov 2005 14:35:19 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131143719.347072.159560@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

alt.education removed.

[snip]

The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists
and
people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that

there

be
no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity

Christmas next month in these united States of America.

Bull *****!
Yet anotehr repeat of a common "Lie for Christ"!

I have no doubt the

American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) is licking their chops, just
waiting to swoop down on some elementary school planning a Christmas
play.
I say it's high time to make this Christmas season one of massive

civil

disobedience and take a stand, just like Mrs. Rosa Parks did so many
decades ago.

Rosa Parks stood for freedom - standing to have YOUR religion shoved at
everyone in, and on, government propertry is NOT freedom - it's

"christian"

tyranny!

I suppose, for starters, that that also means that the following must be
removed and done away with...
1) The Gregorian calendar, since it is based purely on religion. Can’t have
the schools or government using such a religious instrument.
2) The term BC and AD, referring to dates. These too must be stricken from
all public school textbooks and public records, archives, etc., as the
government may not use the Gregorian calendar or the symbols BC or AD to
measure time. That would be an endorsement too!
3) All those blue signs on (taxpayer paid) light posts, etc. that say,
"xxxxx church --> that way"
4) All government subsidies and entitlements (paid by us tax payers) that
are collected by hospitals and medical institutions having their own
chapels, crosses on their roofs, etc. I guess that all such institutions
will no longer be able to treat patients that pay with taxpayer monies
either. We certainly don’t want to subsidize them or otherwise have anyone
think that we are -– not unless they get rid of that dang cross on the roof,
screw the chapels and prohibit all the priests and rabies, etc. that come
there to give dying patents their last rites. Don’t want to offend anyone
with their presence at taxpayer expense.
5) Got to get rid of the 10 commandments and religious icons chiseled in
the cement in all public buildings, including the Supreme Court.
6) Holiday postage stamps with religious symbols or icons -- they have to
go!
7) All cities, towns and villages whose names are religious in character,
such as "Saint Louis," will have to change their names to something
non-religious.
8) All street names with religious names and connotations will also have to
be changed.
9) All religious schools, religious businesses, churches and religious
organizations may no longer incorporate, since doing such will make all said
entities extensions of the State wherein they are incorporated. We don’t
want to have anyone think that the State is trying to promote those guys by
allowing them to incorporate and become part of the state.
10) All non-profit organizations connected in any way with religions
activities or are religious based may no longer receive special tax breaks
and exemptions, because doing so would make any such entity indirectly
subsidized by all the rest of the tax payers, since the rest of use will
have to pay higher taxes in order to compensate for all such lost revenue
not paid in by them. Dang -- how do they get away with that all these years!
11) Religious-based or religious organizations will no longer be able to
participate in rescue efforts or help society or the community, because any
such activity can be construed as interfering with official government
relief efforts, for example; and, they may also be accused of trying to
spread the gospel or religious propaganda under the guise of trying to help
the community. We certainly cannot have government (with our tax money)
coordinating relief or rescue efforts with them. In fact, they have no
business in any community -– as long as they keep their noses out of the
community’s business!
12) All cemeteries must be disposed of, and all religious memorabilia
(grave markers, etc.) removed from all land, since all land is really owned
by the government and we are just allowed to use it as long as we pay the
taxes on it; oh, wait – who pays the taxes on cemeteries? I guess you and I
do, since they pay next to nothing or nothing at all!
13) Can’t have any religious broadcasting on public airwaves either, or off
of satellites, since that is all owned by the government and allowing such
broadcasts can be interpreted as government sponsored religion!
14) And we certainly cannot forget that word “God” on our fiat money – that
has to go too!
15) Got to get that stupid president of ours to stop saying "God Bless..."
to everyone. How embarrassing! Makes me uncomfortable every time I hear him
say that. Since we, the taxpayers, are paying his salary, paying for his
room and board and paying the expenses for him to talk on the radio and TV,
we can tell him to cram it – right? What we need is a pure atheist in the
White House. Can’t go wrong there.
16) And while we’re at it, we will have to raze all religious buildings on
government property, including that big church in Washington D.C. Since
Washington D.C. is 100% U.S. government property, we cannot have any of
"that" religious crap on government property!!!!!!!!!!
We can go on and on. Can you think of anything else? I am sure I left a
bunch of stuff out.
.

User: "Liz"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	06 Nov 2005 08:21:44 AM

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:15:19 GMT, "DocumentsIllustrative"
<NoSpam@d!o!c!u!m!e!n!t!s!i!l!l!u!s!t!r!a!t!i!v!e.com> in news message
<rrfbf.5123$Y61.2828@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
[----]

Actually, all calendars are based on solar and lunar cycles so only if
you worship the "heavenly bodies" as gods would one need to consider
that any calendar is based on religion. Any arbitrary starting point
in measuring time is as good as any other.

2) The term BC and AD, referring to dates. These too must be stricken from
all public school textbooks and public records, archives, etc., as the
government may not use the Gregorian calendar or the symbols BC or AD to
measure time. That would be an endorsement too!

Thinking people already use CE and BCE to denote common era and before
common era. This will soon be the accepted practice.

3) All those blue signs on (taxpayer paid) light posts, etc. that say,
"xxxxx church --> that way"

What blue signs? The only blue signs we have are for rest stops and
hospitals, both at times necessary for travelers. You are correct.
The churches should pay for and erect their own directions signs
without government subsidy.

4) All government subsidies and entitlements (paid by us tax payers) that
are collected by hospitals and medical institutions having their own
chapels, crosses on their roofs, etc. I guess that all such institutions
will no longer be able to treat patients that pay with taxpayer monies
either. We certainly don’t want to subsidize them or otherwise have anyone
think that we are -– not unless they get rid of that dang cross on the roof,
screw the chapels and prohibit all the priests and rabies, etc. that come
there to give dying patents their last rites. Don’t want to offend anyone
with their presence at taxpayer expense.

The Medicare and Medicaid payments are made for the benefit of the
patient being treated, not the hospital or medical facility. Possibly
you may be confused because for the sake of efficiency and prevent
fraud, the payment often goes directly to the medical institution
rather than to the patient who in turn would pay his bill. Patients
also get to chose who visits them, not the government. You seem
unaware that people, not institutions have rights.

5) Got to get rid of the 10 commandments and religious icons chiseled in
the cement in all public buildings, including the Supreme Court.

Agreed. But the Supreme Court doesn't have the Big Ten chiseled in
cement. Nowhere in the Supreme Court building is an text of the Ten
Commandments.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

6) Holiday postage stamps with religious symbols or icons -- they have to
go!

People aren't required to buy or use stamps with religious symbols,
whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim symbols, on them. No one is
forced to participate, and in fact, need to specifically request the
religious stamps. I see no problem with the availability of religious
stamps any more than I see a problem with the availability of
religious bookstores, but maybe you hate personal preference.

7) All cities, towns and villages whose names are religious in character,
such as "Saint Louis," will have to change their names to something
non-religious.

Hmmm. Do you want every person with the first name of Jesus, Mary,
Joseph, and Muhammad to change their names, too? The names of the
cities are independent of the government that manages them. The vast
majority of cities were given their names not by any government, but
by the founder(s) of the towns, who were individuals. Do you propose
a government approved and enforced naming bureaucracy to take away
personal choice on the names they give their homes and their children.
I guess you really don't like individual liberty.

8) All street names with religious names and connotations will also have to
be changed.

Same as above.

9) All religious schools, religious businesses, churches and religious
organizations may no longer incorporate, since doing such will make all said
entities extensions of the State wherein they are incorporated. We don’t
want to have anyone think that the State is trying to promote those guys by
allowing them to incorporate and become part of the state.

You are conflating the meanings or incorporation. If you think you
are not, please give a specific example concerning a religious school,
church, or religious organization, most of which are not incorporated,
but are established as a 501 (c) (3) organizations. The main reason
why certain religious organizations incorporate, and are treated just
like secular businesses and are no more extensions of the State than
is WalMart, is that they want to protect the tax exempt status of
their religious business.

10) All non-profit organizations connected in any way with religions
activities or are religious based may no longer receive special tax breaks
and exemptions, because doing so would make any such entity indirectly
subsidized by all the rest of the tax payers, since the rest of use will
have to pay higher taxes in order to compensate for all such lost revenue
not paid in by them. Dang -- how do they get away with that all these years!

While I rather agree with this sentiment, the power to tax is the
power to destroy, and no matter how much you dislike the fact that
religions are tax exempt, it is the only way to ensure freedom of
religious choice and practice. I do think that those religious
organizations that do violate the laws regarding tax exemptions should
have them taken away under due process of law.

11) Religious-based or religious organizations will no longer be able to
participate in rescue efforts or help society or the community, because any
such activity can be construed as interfering with official government
relief efforts, for example; and, they may also be accused of trying to
spread the gospel or religious propaganda under the guise of trying to help
the community. We certainly cannot have government (with our tax money)
coordinating relief or rescue efforts with them. In fact, they have no
business in any community -– as long as they keep their noses out of the
community’s business!

Religions can give away any charity they choose. If they are
unethical in denying those in need because they don't belong to the
"right" religion or make it mandatory to listen to sermons before
being fed, I hope that these acts are brought to the public's
attention and the religions suffer from lack of further donations.
The power of the purse is often the most effective method of curing
bad behavior. Of course, when a religious organization is so rich and
powerful as to hide the unethical or even illegal and immoral acts of
its clergy, such as moving known child molesters from parish to
parish, it is often difficult to chastise the religions financially,
and justice for the victims is often a pyrrhic victory.

12) All cemeteries must be disposed of, and all religious memorabilia
(grave markers, etc.) removed from all land, since all land is really owned
by the government and we are just allowed to use it as long as we pay the
taxes on it; oh, wait – who pays the taxes on cemeteries? I guess you and I
do, since they pay next to nothing or nothing at all!

Ah, communal ownership. I thought communism was a dying concept, but
hey, you want to bring it back. Well, I guess we will just stack up
the dead bodies in your backyard as your contribution to the
collective.

13) Can’t have any religious broadcasting on public airwaves either, or off
of satellites, since that is all owned by the government and allowing such
broadcasts can be interpreted as government sponsored religion!

Part of the First Amendment that you are ignoring is the part about
"freedom of the press". I've never read of someone who wants the
government to control every facet of its citizens lives. The rights
belong to the people, not to the government. I would not want to live
in the totalitarian Big Brother society that you support.

14) And we certainly cannot forget that word “God” on our fiat money – that
has to go too!

I agree. It is a government endorsement of religion. The people
should be free to chose their own religion without government
interference, coercion, or endorsement. That is another part of the
First Amendment that you would be willing to trash.

15) Got to get that stupid president of ours to stop saying "God Bless..."
to everyone. How embarrassing! Makes me uncomfortable every time I hear him
say that.

The country would be better off without GWB, but not because of his
use of religious phraseology. That is the least of our worries.

Since we, the taxpayers, are paying his salary, paying for his
room and board and paying the expenses for him to talk on the radio and TV,
we can tell him to cram it – right? What we need is a pure atheist in the
White House. Can’t go wrong there.

Individuals acting as individuals have the right to religious
expression or the lack thereof. I think you just hit the third part
of the First Amendment that you'd like to do away with, the freedom of
speech.

16) And while we’re at it, we will have to raze all religious buildings on
government property, including that big church in Washington D.C. Since
Washington D.C. is 100% U.S. government property, we cannot have any of
"that" religious crap on government property!!!!!!!!!!

From the website of the National Cathedral:
http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/
We rely entirely on private support. The Cathedral
receives no government or national church funding.
Please click here to learn how you can help.
I have no idea why you want to take about the right of people to
choose their religious expression. You sound like a right wing
fanatic who thinks that the government should be the end-all, be-all
and dictate how the citizens can and SHOULD express themselves.

We can go on and on. Can you think of anything else? I am sure I left a
bunch of stuff out.

Yes, you left out the Constitution, but hey, what can you expect from
a neo-con.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.

User: "DocumentsIllustrative"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	06 Nov 2005 11:55:19 AM

"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:kpvrm1htdpngk79t1f1ulm8e2hinh3pmck@4ax.com...

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:15:19 GMT, "DocumentsIllustrative"
<NoSpam@d!o!c!u!m!e!n!t!s!i!l!l!u!s!t!r!a!t!i!v!e.com> in news message
<rrfbf.5123$Y61.2828@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> wrote:

[----]

I suppose, for starters, that that also means that the following must be
removed and done away with...

1) The Gregorian calendar, since it is based purely on religion. Can't

have

the schools or government using such a religious instrument.

True, but it is still deeply rooted in religion. You need not look far but
at the names given the days of the weeks.

2) The term BC and AD, referring to dates. These too must be stricken

from

all public school textbooks and public records, archives, etc., as the
government may not use the Gregorian calendar or the symbols BC or AD to
measure time. That would be an endorsement too!

Thinking people already use CE and BCE to denote common era and before
common era. This will soon be the accepted practice.

You are unwittingly proving my point here. We will not have complete
separation until then.

3) All those blue signs on (taxpayer paid) light posts, etc. that say,
"xxxxx church --> that way"

In the state that I live, and many others, religious sings that direct you
to churches are blue and are mounted beneath the regular street-name signs.

4) All government subsidies and entitlements (paid by us tax payers)

that

are collected by hospitals and medical institutions having their own
chapels, crosses on their roofs, etc. I guess that all such institutions
will no longer be able to treat patients that pay with taxpayer monies
either. We certainly don't want to subsidize them or otherwise have

anyone

think that we are -- not unless they get rid of that dang cross on the

roof,

screw the chapels and prohibit all the priests and rabies, etc. that come
there to give dying patents their last rites. Don't want to offend anyone
with their presence at taxpayer expense.

Since such direct payments are as a result of a person's choice, thus
benefiting such institutions that blatantly display religious icons, that is
no different than if the government were to subsidize a church either
directly or indirectly using the same qualifying and discriminatory
mechanisms.

5) Got to get rid of the 10 commandments and religious icons chiseled in
the cement in all public buildings, including the Supreme Court.

Agreed. But the Supreme Court doesn't have the Big Ten chiseled in
cement. Nowhere in the Supreme Court building is an text of the Ten
Commandments.

Cute. You know what I mean.

6) Holiday postage stamps with religious symbols or icons -- they have

go!

Not true, since tax money and government property, which is being complained
of and the motivation of my list, is being used to design, manufacture and
push/provide such stamps. I think some more die-hard "perfect separation"
activists would argue with you on this point.

7) All cities, towns and villages whose names are religious in

character,

such as "Saint Louis," will have to change their names to something
non-religious.

Not true. It's the extremism, when carried too far, that I am pointing out.
For example, Zion Illinois had a religious symbol in their city emblem,
signifying its origins and history. Like the name "Zion" the symbol was
religious. Now, the only symbol that remains is the name "Zion." The two,
even though inseparable, were separated. "Zion" is no less a symbol than the
symbol removed from the city's emblem. If the name (as well as the
symbolism) were given by the founders, then why was the symbol separated and
treaded different than the "symbolic" name "Zion" which is purely religious
and can have no other connotations? A symbol by any other name is still a
symbol.

8) All street names with religious names and connotations will also have

be changed.

Same as above.

9) All religious schools, religious businesses, churches and religious
organizations may no longer incorporate, since doing such will make all

said

entities extensions of the State wherein they are incorporated. We don't
want to have anyone think that the State is trying to promote those guys

allowing them to incorporate and become part of the state.

I never suggested that all or most are incorporated. I stated that they may
not incorporate, because doing so would make them an extension of the state.
Also, your arguments are conflicting. You are introducing allowable
exceptions in order to allow tax benefits. If there is to be true "perfect
separation" then no such entities should be allowed to incorporate. The
joining of such entities with the state through incorporating could be
argued as being in violation of such separation.

10) All non-profit organizations connected in any way with religions
activities or are religious based may no longer receive special tax

breaks

and exemptions, because doing so would make any such entity indirectly
subsidized by all the rest of the tax payers, since the rest of use will
have to pay higher taxes in order to compensate for all such lost revenue
not paid in by them. Dang -- how do they get away with that all these

years!

Another exception that may be argued as violating "perfect separation." Why
should I be forced to subsidize, either directly or indirectly, a religious
entity through their tax exemptions? This makes my taxes higher in order to
compensate. Is it the purpose of government, using law, to *promote* freedom
of religions using such means? Why should government partake in such
promotional activity anyway - especially religious? Why should religious
charitable organizations, for example, be treated on the same footing as
non-religious organizations? Is this true separation, or should religions
organizations be treated the same as any other business, not-profit or
otherwise, that also does not qualify for such tax exemptions.

11) Religious-based or religious organizations will no longer be able to
participate in rescue efforts or help society or the community, because

any

such activity can be construed as interfering with official government
relief efforts, for example; and, they may also be accused of trying to
spread the gospel or religious propaganda under the guise of trying to

help

the community. We certainly cannot have government (with our tax money)
coordinating relief or rescue efforts with them. In fact, they have no
business in any community -- as long as they keep their noses out of the
community's business!

Interesting point of view.

12) All cemeteries must be disposed of, and all religious memorabilia
(grave markers, etc.) removed from all land, since all land is really

owned

by the government and we are just allowed to use it as long as we pay the
taxes on it; oh, wait - who pays the taxes on cemeteries? I guess you and

do, since they pay next to nothing or nothing at all!

What's the difference? It's alive and well and thriving. Take for example
recent USSC ruling, concerning taking private property for another private
party's use under the guise that party "B" will put the land to better use.
No matter how you slice it, the State owns the land and can do what it
pleases with it; and, as any argument can be conjured up to show that the
State can better dispose of the land than can private individuals.

13) Can't have any religious broadcasting on public airwaves either, or

off

of satellites, since that is all owned by the government and allowing

such

broadcasts can be interpreted as government sponsored religion!

That may be true, but it still violates "perfect separation," since
government property is being used to facilitate the promotion of such. It is
no different than allowing religious memorabilia and nativity scenes to be
erected on government property, as long as you allow all religions equal
access to said government property. Does it make any difference what the
vehicle is that is being used to promote and display such religious
propaganda, whether it is on government-owned soil of this earth or through
government-owned technological means? If the argument holds against one, it
must hold against the other.

14) And we certainly cannot forget that word "God" on our fiat money -

that

has to go too!

15) Got to get that stupid president of ours to stop saying "God

Bless..."

to everyone. How embarrassing! Makes me uncomfortable every time I hear

him

say that.

The country would be better off without GWB, but not because of his
use of religious phraseology. That is the least of our worries.

You may be right here.

Since we, the taxpayers, are paying his salary, paying for his
room and board and paying the expenses for him to talk on the radio and

TV,

we can tell him to cram it - right? What we need is a pure atheist in the
White House. Can't go wrong there.

The assumption, I would hazard to guess, is that a government office,
property or taxes is not being used for such speech or promotion. In the
case of George, he would be violating all three - especially using his
"government" office to suggest or impose on the rest of us his personal
views and ideologies concerning religion and moral values. So, I think some
would argue with you on this one as well.
Personally, I dislike bible-thumpers; and, I dislike bible-thumpers that try
to push their crap on me using a public office as their bully pulpit --
either directly through speech or through obviously unconditional means,
using other branches/offices such as Congress, USSC or the Attorney General'
s Office to impose on the rest of us their moral convictions and ideologies,
which is something left better to the States according to the Framers of our
Constitution. That is not to say, however, that I believe in "perfect
separation," but reasonable separation never the less at appropriate levels
of government - especially Federal, where their powers are enumerated and
limited anyway and do not extend to such objects as moralities. As Madison
and others said in convention, regulating moral behavior can be achieved
with the powers already delegated, to wit, through indirect means by
imposing taxes on the consumption of such objects as sprits (alcohol) and
extravagant luxuries when debating about whether the government should be
given the power to make sumptuary laws. Needless to say, the government was
denied such powers; so to this day, neither Congress nor the President can
say "boo" concerning our moral behaviors, other than trying to guide it
through the indirect means of taxes on consumption; and, by the way, no such
powers were given or implied through the power to regulate commerce between
State and State. This had been stressed numerous times on powers concerning
this and other objects denied Congress.

16) And while we're at it, we will have to raze all religious buildings

government property, including that big church in Washington D.C. Since
Washington D.C. is 100% U.S. government property, we cannot have any of
"that" religious crap on government property!!!!!!!!!!

Irrelevant. The whole point I was trying to make is the imposition and
enforcement of "perfect separation" and candidly trying to be consistent
with the statement made, "...standing to have YOUR religion shoved at
everyone in, and on, *government* property is NOT freedom - it's "Christian"
tyranny!"
Since such buildings and structures are on Government Property, I figure as
such it was fair game.

I have no idea why you want to take about the right of people to
choose their religious expression. You sound like a right wing
fanatic who thinks that the government should be the end-all, be-all
and dictate how the citizens can and SHOULD express themselves.

Siounds deceiving, I guess.

We can go on and on. Can you think of anything else? I am sure I left a
bunch of stuff out.

Yes, you left out the Constitution, but hey, what can you expect from
a neo-con.

Actually, leaving out the Constitution was intentional to stress some
points, as ridiculous as they may be. I am glad you noticed, though. I have
actually met some that consider the constitution as antiquated and of no
consequence. It's sad, but true.

Liz #658 BAAWA

Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell

User: "Craig Pennington"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 06:23:56 PM

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

I have no doubt the
American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) is licking their chops, just
waiting to swoop down on some elementary school planning a Christmas play.
I say it's high time to make this Christmas season one of massive civil
disobedience and take a stand, just like Mrs. Rosa Parks did so many
decades ago.

Might I suggest Creche's at your Churches and in your residential front
lawns. That'll really show those ACLU folks!

I agree. Note that the ACLU foolishly uses Jefferson's "wall of
separation" writing to help justify its attacks on the 1st Amendment
guarantee of religious expression.

Religious expression requires government sponsorship?

This is evidenced by the fact that
Jefferson also wrote that attempts to weaken religious expression will
also weaken free speech:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

This in no way supports a position that government sponship is required
for religious expression.

The ACLU also ignores that Jefferson indicated that religious
expression is our most sacred freedom:
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and
sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of
Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

The fundamental delusion under which you operate is that you think
that witholding government sponsership in any way interferes with the
right to free expression of religion.

The ACLU has also overlooked that Jefferson reflected that the Founding
Fathers gave the care of our religious freedoms to the States:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

Note that Jefferson in no way says that the Federal government can't step
in when a State government fails in its obligation to protect the rights
of conscience of the people.

Also note that even the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation"
words show that Jefferson was talking about the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government. In fact, the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely for the States since
the 1st Amendment prohibited this power explicitly only to the federal
government.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Except that the State governments have no authority to infringe on
unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are unalienable.

This whole 'separation of church and state' garbage spewed by ignorant
people and backed by the communists in this country masquerading as
liberals over any display of Christianity or the Ten Commandments is bogus.

Again with the dishonesty. Witholding government special treatment is
not an infringement on your rights. You may post the Ten Commandments
on your private property all you want. You may festoon your car with
Bible quotes. Opposition to *your* attempts to use *our* government to
promote *your* religion to *my* children is not oppresion.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 07:33:10 PM

"Craig Pennington" <cpenning@milo.org> wrote in message
news:h0at33-4lu.ln1@nazg.milo.org...

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists

and

people of other religions are cranking up with their demands that there

no Christmas decorations, pageants or any other sign of Christianity in
Christmas next month in these united States of America.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

Why do people who want to force secular humanism and homosexual is normal on
the rest of us, always lie.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	05 Nov 2005 12:30:53 AM

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:33:10 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:

Why do people who want to force secular humanism and homosexual is normal on
the rest of us, always lie.

Why do some people want to be used as a toilet, DANA?

------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.

User: "Craig Pennington"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 08:30:07 PM

Quoth Dana <whoya@whoya.com>:

"Craig Pennington" <cpenning@milo.org> wrote in message
news:h0at33-4lu.ln1@nazg.milo.org...

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

Why do people who want to force secular humanism and homosexual is
normal on the rest of us, always lie.

How is not letting you use government to proselytize my children
into your religion 'forcing secular humanism' on you?
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 09:47:09 PM

"Craig Pennington" <cpenning@milo.org> wrote in message
news:3jht33-55v.ln1@nazg.milo.org...

Quoth Dana <whoya@whoya.com>:

"Craig Pennington" <cpenning@milo.org> wrote in message
news:h0at33-4lu.ln1@nazg.milo.org...

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

Why do people who want to force secular humanism and homosexual is
normal on the rest of us, always lie.

How is not letting you use government to proselytize my children
into your religion

Look another pig fucking leftist liar. The only proselttizing going on is
being done by secular humanist atheists, and homosexuals.
So keep your beliefs out of the public schools, where they do not belong.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	05 Nov 2005 12:31:30 AM

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:47:09 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:

Speaking of a "pig", buttmaster...........

User: "fred"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 08:20:52 PM

Craig Pennington wrote:

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

I will not deny that the Christian Right is making assertions about the
United States which are undefendable, in my opinion. However, the ACLU
is ignoring the relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments. Note
that, as opposed to ignoring the 10th Amendment like activist judges
and the ACLU do, the Opelika opinion indicates that the 10th Amendment
is alive and kicking:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942

Might I suggest Creche's at your Churches and in your residential front
lawns. That'll really show those ACLU folks!

I agree. Note that the ACLU foolishly uses Jefferson's "wall of
separation" writing to help justify its attacks on the 1st Amendment
guarantee of religious expression.

Religious expression requires government sponsorship?

The full enjoyment of religious expression, such as addressing the
ramifications of creationism in public school classrooms, requires
activist judges to stop interefering with free speech in the public
school classrooms.

This is evidenced by the fact that
Jefferson also wrote that attempts to weaken religious expression will
also weaken free speech:

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

This in no way supports a position that government sponship is required
for religious expression.

You are sidestepping the problem that activist judges are interefering
with free speech when they forbid the ramifications of creationism to
be discussed in the public school classrooms.

The ACLU also ignores that Jefferson indicated that religious
expression is our most sacred freedom:

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and
sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of
Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

The fundamental delusion under which you operate is that you think
that witholding government sponsership in any way interferes with the
right to free expression of religion.

Again, you are ignoring that activist judges are interefering with free
speech in the name of the so-called constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation.

The ACLU has also overlooked that Jefferson reflected that the Founding
Fathers gave the care of our religious freedoms to the States:

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

Note that Jefferson in no way says that the Federal government can't step
in when a State government fails in its obligation to protect the rights
of conscience of the people.

I agree. The problem is that activist judges are ignoring the 10th
Amendment, using the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation to essentially stifle free speech in the name
of rectifying the problem. What should be happening is that all judges
should be balancing the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the States
with 14th Amendment protected personal rights as evidenced by the
following extract from Opelika:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942

"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Except that the State governments have no authority to infringe on
unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are unalienable.

Again, judges should be balancing the 10th Amendment sovereign powers
of the States with 14th Amendment protected personal rights as opposed
to the way that activist judges are now sweeping the 10th Amendment
under the carpet to stifle religious free speech.

The government can either hinder, encourage or simply keep its mouth
shut with respect to what people say. Activist judges are hindering
free speech because they don't like religious free speech.

Cheers,
Craig

--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.

User: ""
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	05 Nov 2005 12:33:43 AM

On 4 Nov 2005 18:20:52 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Schools are GOVERNMENT venues, Freddie
Schools CAN address those issues in certain classes
But not as an alternative to scientific process.
Creationism is philsophical, as is "divine guidance"
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment	04 Nov 2005 06:41:33 PM

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:23:56 GMT, Craig Pennington <cpenning@milo.org>
wrote:

Quoth fred <clarma1@gmail.com>:

alt.education removed.

Why do those who wish to push government sponsorship of religion on
the rest of us feel the need to lie about the ACLU? Or is government
sponsorship necessary for your religion?

To get their unthinking followers in a frenzy. They vote.
But they don't just lie about the ACLU. Also "liberals", "secular
humanists", "leftists", atheists and a whole slew of others.