| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2005 04:36:20 PM |
| 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: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 05:32:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Theocrats in action
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.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 05:56:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1131125550.842033.81790@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> writes:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
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.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Well, yes...but that would be entirely consistent with the intentions of
the Founding Fathers.
What? No no no, not THOSE Founding Fathers: I'm talking about the pre-Founding
Fathers, the ones who set up the various colonies, frequently with
quite repressive religious ordinances (see, for example, the
treatment of Baptists -- Anabaptists -- in Massachusetts)
I'm guessing that Fred's attitude torwards this might be something
like "Hey, it's their right."
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Pennington" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 08:36:34 PM |
|
|
Quoth cpt banjo <cptbanjo@aol.com>:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
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..."
"...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."
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.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Oh, they don't seem to be the sort who would mind bringing back the
days when being a Baptist in Massachusetts was grounds for
imprisonment. Anyone wishing to live in a place where "no person ...
shall be in any wise molested, punished disquieted, or called in
question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion"
can move to Rhode Island!
There's a reason early Baptists in the US were such strong proponents
of the Rights of Conscience. Those who think that the States are free to
set up religious establishments, infringe on the free exercise of
religion, control the press, outlaw peacable assemblies and refuse to
allow people to petition their Governments for a redress of grievances
are dangerously ignorant.
They seek to invoke a narrow interpretation of individual liberties and
a broad interpretation of Government power that completely ignores the
context of the arguments for the Rights of Conscience made at the time
of the founding of the Union. They make no positive argument for State
establishments. They leave unsaid the implications of their (incorrect)
argument asserting Federal impotence in the face of a State attempt at
a religious establishment for the free exercise and other clauses of the
First Amendment. Implicit in their argument is the assumption
(explicitly rejected by the 9th Amendment) that the Constitution
enumerates all rights retained by the people.
State governments do not have and have never had the authority to
infringe on any unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are
unalienable.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 08:42:11 PM |
|
|
In article <8tss33-b4u.ln1@nazg.milo.org> Craig Pennington <cpenning@milo.org> writes:
Quoth cpt banjo <cptbanjo@aol.com>:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Theocrats in action
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..."
"...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."
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.
What Devvy the chowderhead doesn't seem to realize is that if the First
Amendment, unaffected by the 14th, applies only to Congress, than any
state could make it a crime to practice a particular religion (it could
also prohibit free speech and press).
Oh, they don't seem to be the sort who would mind bringing back the
days when being a Baptist in Massachusetts was grounds for
imprisonment. Anyone wishing to live in a place where "no person ...
shall be in any wise molested, punished disquieted, or called in
question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion"
can move to Rhode Island!
And recalcitrant Quakers could be hanged, which I imagine is most
diquieting.
There's a reason early Baptists in the US were such strong proponents
of the Rights of Conscience. Those who think that the States are free to
set up religious establishments, infringe on the free exercise of
religion, control the press, outlaw peacable assemblies and refuse to
allow people to petition their Governments for a redress of grievances
are dangerously ignorant.
They seek to invoke a narrow interpretation of individual liberties and
a broad interpretation of Government power that completely ignores the
context of the arguments for the Rights of Conscience made at the time
of the founding of the Union. They make no positive argument for State
establishments. They leave unsaid the implications of their (incorrect)
argument asserting Federal impotence in the face of a State attempt at
a religious establishment for the free exercise and other clauses of the
First Amendment. Implicit in their argument is the assumption
(explicitly rejected by the 9th Amendment) that the Constitution
enumerates all rights retained by the people.
State governments do not have and have never had the authority to
infringe on any unalienable rights. The rights of conscience are
unalienable.
Very well said.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 06:41:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
[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.
Total and absolute lie. The lawsuits are against the *unconstitutional endorsement of
religion by government agencies.* I, and I am willing to bet most every other atheist
in the United States, don't give a snake's fart about the presence or existence of
Christmas decorations, pageants, etc. What we do care about is when these things are
presented at public expense, in violation of the First Amendment. As for
private-sector displays, I really don't care. Just don't be surprised when I refuse
to shop with you when you start up the Christmas displays and muzak the first week of
November :-p
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 04:39:50 PM |
|
|
Of course if there were any public displays of Islam, the ACLU, like
the rest of the idiot left, would bow down towards it five times per
day.
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
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 doctrin=
es
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 t=
he
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 bogu=
s=2E
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 socie=
ty
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 religio=
us
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 establishme=
nt
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 t=
he
United States;"
The Fourteenth Amendment created a second class of "citizen", an important
distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the positi=
on
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 ve=
ry
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 establishi=
ng
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourteen=
th
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 attempti=
ng
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 roo=
m=2E
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 =B7 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. Eisne=
r,
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: "jcon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 08:25:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Of course if there were any public displays of Islam, the ACLU, like
the rest of the idiot left, would bow down towards it five times per
day.
And of course you can provide an example of the ACLU defending
public money being spent on an Islamic display?
I didn't think so.
-jc
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote:
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 doctr=
ines
advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if
afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the who=
le
adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but th=
at
each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thom=
as
Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192
[snip]
The Christmas season is about to be launched and already the atheists a=
nd
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 pl=
ay.
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 bo=
gus.
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 among=
st
Americans of all religions, denigrate patriotism and push a Godless soc=
iety
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 scho=
ol
district, Ewing Township, directed students to use the public bus syste=
m 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 un=
der
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 relig=
ious
education on behalf of a particular church.
Everson claimed that the payments to parents of parochial school studen=
ts
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 follow=
ing
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 establish=
ment
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 . .=
=2E
."
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 import=
ant
distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the posi=
tion
that the freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.
The Everson decision unconstitutionally and dramatically expanded the r=
ole
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 establis=
hing
a religion - only Congress. But, the 1947 Supreme Court used the Fourte=
enth
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 a=
ny
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 o=
r 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 attemp=
ting
to make any law establishing any religion.
Post the Ten Commandments on classroom wall or even a court house and t=
he
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 hundred=
s 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 "Congre=
ss
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Congress ha=
s 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 religi=
on
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 sitt=
ing
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 r=
oom.
It's most unfortunate the gutless, counterfeit U.S. Senate back then di=
dn'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 =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members fr=
om
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. Wor=
ds
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is wh=
y "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eis=
ner,
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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 10:11:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:36:20 -0600, wrote:
Theocrats in action
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd135.htm
CHRISTMAS, THE ACLU & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By: Devvy
Devvy is just great!
You can gaze into her eyes (even on the Internet) and, after a
while, one generally realizes that there is no one at home.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
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: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fred Clone: Christmas, the ACLU & Civil Disobedience |
04 Nov 2005 08:48:12 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed
Great! Now I can take a break.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
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
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
04 Nov 2005 10:35:19 PM |
|
|
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 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.
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. 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
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 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
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."
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.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 01:01:02 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 4 Nov 2005 14:35:19 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> let us all know that:
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 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.
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.
That's nice. But what happens if the muslims want to have a
ramadan display at city hall? How many xers would scream their heads
off to have that stopped?
IOW: it's hypocrisy, because you can just see the xers doing
that. A lot of them want freedom only for their religion, and not for
anyone else, including those without a religion.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 01:03:38 AM |
|
|
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places and
schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious beliefs in
everyone else's face.
The place for Jesus and the manger is in churches not in "public schools".
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news: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 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.
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. 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
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 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
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."
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.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 03:51:15 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places and
schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious beliefs
in
everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed from the
public schools now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 05:57:34 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places and
schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal and you and your kind are a dying breed. I live in a red-necked
area of Northern California, not far from what is probably *the* red-necked
area.
Even in the heart of that land few people pay attention to lesbians making
out on dance floors.
With luck in a few decades the churches will move back towards the
acceptance of the GLTBQ crowd as it did in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 07:12:12 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places and
schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
and you and your kind are a dying breed
Keep crying loser. You are going to perish in the coming civil war, as will
many leftists, all for the better of the world and human kind.
So keep your beliefs out of the public schools, and stop forcing them on
everyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
07 Nov 2005 02:55:00 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for
freedom of Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public
places and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your"
religious beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public
schools, like homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that
needs to be removed from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Define 'normal'. If something is 'normal' (like slavery presumably
was a couple of hundred years ago), does that make it 'moral'?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 06:52:12 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places
and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Where exactly does Darwin say this?
I suspect I know the answer you will give and would point to ants.
However if you do give the answer I expect I'm guessing you are to stupid to
understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 07:43:52 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wb7bf.12455$dO2.3420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places
and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Where exactly does Darwin say this?
Well if you were better educated you would know.
Now go back to sucking the dicks of your leftist masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
07 Nov 2005 02:57:16 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wb7bf.12455$dO2.3420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places
and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Where exactly does Darwin say this?
Well if you were better educated you would know.
Now go back to sucking the dicks of your leftist masters.
The debate is over, we have a winner.
--
Jack
Plonked by Thomas
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
06 Nov 2005 12:03:22 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wb7bf.12455$dO2.3420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom
of Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places
and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Where exactly does Darwin say this?
Well if you were better educated you would know.
Now go back to sucking the dicks of your leftist masters.
Nice try. I've seen little kids who are better at it.
Darwin said NOTHING about homosexuality being wrong.
(It was probably the reference to ants that confused him.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
06 Nov 2005 08:02:18 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wb7bf.12455$dO2.3420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Dana wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iRXaf.9091$BZ5.6048@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of
Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places
and schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious
beliefs in everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal. You are correct, that needs to be removed
from the public schools now.
It is normal
Darwin says otherwise.
You lose again.
Where exactly does Darwin say this?
Well if you were better educated you would know.
No cite? Guess that means you're lying, hmm?
Now go back to sucking the dicks of your leftist masters.
Oooo. That must have cut him to the quick.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 04:32:04 PM |
|
|
In article <11momfhkt6mvq49@corp.supernews.com>, Dana said...
and you and your kind are a dying breed
Keep crying loser. You are going to perish in the coming civil war, as will
many leftists, all for the better of the world and human kind.
Have you been fitted for your brown shirt yet, you vile excuse
for a human being?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 07:42:23 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd6a88b83259b2c989938@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <11momfhkt6mvq49@corp.supernews.com>, Dana said...
and you and your kind are a dying breed
Keep crying loser. You are going to perish in the coming civil war, as
will
many leftists, all for the better of the world and human kind.
Have you been fitted for your brown shirt yet
The brown shirts are those on the left, that is why they have to go.
It is the left that is against natural law, and natural rights, hence
against liberty and freedom. To the left rights can only come from the
government. While those on the right agree with natural law, that man is
born with his rights, and that rights do not come from government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 06:34:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:51:15 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HvTaf.259$%k.106@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No one argues against the First Amendment provision for freedom of Speech.
What people object to is religious proselytizing in public places and
schools.
Freedom of religion does not provide freedom put "your" religious beliefs
in
everyone else's face.
Like what the secular humanists preach in the public schools, like
homosexuality is normal.
Do you think wanting to be ***** and pissed on are "normal",
BUTTMASTER?
------------------------------------------------------
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: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
05 Nov 2005 01:30:30 AM |
|
|
On 2005-11-04 14:35:19 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> said:
Note that the ACLU foolishly uses
[snip]
The ACLU argues cases and win some. And lose some.
Your beef is with the courts. Anyone can make an argument. It takes a
judge or jury to make a verdict.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU doesn't understand Jefferson or 10th Amendment |
04 Nov 2005 11:46:35 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2005 14:35:19 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
You can't post any law that says you ca | | |
