| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2003 06:24:32 AM |
| Object: |
A good website for church & State |
Church and State Religious Liberty
The First Amendment
http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: A good website for church & State |
29 Oct 2003 12:18:00 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nodpm.net> wrote in message
news:8bcvpv8eiik3d8rch1ru56i57in156ems2@4ax.com...
Church and State Religious Liberty
The First Amendment
http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
No. That is just a biased, zealot's, opinion page.
A GOOD site is http://www.au.org/
Your basic assumption seems to be that any act done under the name of
religion overrides any laws of mankind. That is INSANE!
Religious freedoms were NOT lost - unless you had the delusional idea that
anything you do, under the guise of religion, is legal. Such is NOT - and
never was - the case!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A good website for church & State |
29 Oct 2003 01:13:03 PM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nodpm.net> wrote in message
:|news:8bcvpv8eiik3d8rch1ru56i57in156ems2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|>
:|> Church and State Religious Liberty
:|> The First Amendment
:|> http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
:|
:|No. That is just a biased, zealot's, opinion page.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|A GOOD site is http://www.au.org/
A VERY GOOD site is our site:
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
**************************************************
The AU site is a good site for a site created and maintained by a large
activist organization. A site that must, because of the nature of the
beast, split itself between advancing the strict separation church state
position and itself.
This site
Church and State Religious Liberty
The First Amendment
http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
is a good academic site.
This is especially good:
-----------------------------------------------
Excerpt from
http://crisis.net/church-state/estab1.htm
Establishing the History of the Establishment Clause
Larry Pahl
The battle over history
Within this general frame of differing outlooks on the Court's activity is
the specific battleground of the meaning of the Establishment Clause--its
founding history. Many skirmishes have been engaged here over the issue of
the creation of the amendment and the intent of its framers. Two major
differing outlooks are found among the combatants. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, by his position, can be considered the
champion of one of the camps, with roots from previous centuries in, for
instance, John Cotton and Patrick Henry, which favor government
encouragement to religion. This camp, which includes current Supreme Court
Justices Scalia and Thomas, believes the Establishment Clause erects no
"wall of separation" between the church and the state, as Rehnquist writes
in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree:
It would seem...that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a
national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or
denominations...The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between
religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from
providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical
foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall
of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson...
The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based
on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.
It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.20
Hopefully, when Rehnquist says "bad history" here he means "inaccurate
history," as in "bad historiography." That is, we assume that for "bad
history" Rehnquist means something like this: "Those who say that the
historical record indicates a desire in the Framers to radically separate
church and state have not fairly surveyed the historical data, and have
therefore inaccurately portrayed it." Let us assume that this is what
Rehnquist meant because to accept what he has actually written here--that
the separationist view is "bad history"--is to accept that Rehnquist is
living in massive denial and self-deceit, apparently understanding that the
Virginia history reveals a truly separationist intent on the part of the
Framers and that he doesn't like this (actual) history.21 He calls it "bad"
and says it should be abandoned. While that may be one way to eliminate a
fact one doesn't like, it's hardly an exemplary one. So we will assume that
Rehnquist means that the history offered by certain previous Courts, not to
mention scores of respected historians, was poorly done, an inaccurate
recounting of the history of that period.
The other polar camp in this debate, to which the message of Rehnquist is
reacting, sees Jefferson and Madison as seminal Framing influences at the
time of the First Congress, teaching that a complete separation of church
and state was necessary for the health of the new republic.22 The view that
the Clause requires a secular outlook usually accompanies this position.
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, in championing the opposing view, have
become the darlings of the Religious Right, a movement which is in the
process of mobilizing its supporters to back a religious liberty amendment
to the Constitution. This amendment--alluded to in the introduction here as
one that could bludgeon the Establishment Clause--will be dealt with later
in this paper. Suffice it to say here that its intent and possible effect
is a practical obliteration of the first provision of the Bill of Rights.23
---------------------------------------------------------
Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree: a Rebuttal Rehnquist's fallacious ideas
of history are rebutted with historical references and material provided.
[short version, a longer more complete version is being finished]
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rebuttal.htm
This Headline Is False by Gene Garman
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/162/1/41
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR'S CONFUSION
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/oconnor.html
Vouchers: Our Position [Documents the slipping of strict separation]
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
:|Your basic assumption seems to be that any act done under the name of
:|religion overrides any laws of mankind. That is INSANE!
What is insane is you appear to misunderstood a pro separation web site for
a pro accommodationist/non-preferential site.
:|Religious freedoms were NOT lost - unless you had the delusional idea that
:|anything you do, under the guise of religion, is legal. Such is NOT - and
:|never was - the case!
See my comments above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A good website for church & State |
29 Oct 2003 12:27:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, ZenIsWhen wrote:
Church and State Religious Liberty
The First Amendment
http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
No. That is just a biased, [sic] zealot's, opinion page.
Do you have a specific criticism?
Is there something incorrect there?
What is zealous about it?
A GOOD site is http://www.au.org/
Yes, it is very good. However, there are those here who would make the
same accusations about it that you have made about the web site above.
Your basic assumption seems to be that any act done under the name of
religion overrides any laws of mankind. That is INSANE!
On what do you base that accusation?
Religious freedoms were NOT lost - unless you had the delusional idea that
anything you do, under the guise of religion, is legal. Such is NOT - and
never was - the case!
Did he ever say he had such an idea?
Or is this your own strawman?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: A good website for church & State |
29 Oct 2003 12:44:03 PM |
|
|
Religious freedoms were NOT lost - unless you had the delusional idea that
anything you do, under the guise of religion, is legal. Such is NOT - and
never was - the case!
Did he ever say he had such an idea?
Dennis Malvasi and Loretta Marra certainly got away scot-free with what, under
Article 810(c) of the Patriot Act, is a life sentence because of their
religion. Malvasi and Marra are Christians and therefore were not prosecuted
for giving financial support to terrorists. (ok...technicality here. They were
prosecuted but sentenced to time served and set free)
Sometimes what you do under the guise of religion CAN be legal, as the
administration proved in the Malvasi and Marra case up to and including murder
and terrorism...as long as it is religious actions approved by the powers that
be.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
