| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 04:22:07 AM |
| Object: |
Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/10/03/20051003wacchurchstate.html
Americans struggle with church-state separation issues
By Terri Jo Ryan Tribune-Herald staff writer
Monday, October 03, 2005
MIAMI – Americans treasure the religious freedoms afforded them through the
Constitution but are less eager to preserve them through maintenance of the
separation of church and state, according to a new national survey.
In its second annual survey, the results of which were released Saturday at
the Religion Newswriters Association's annual meeting, the Virginia-based
Council for America's First Freedom said 50 percent of those polled by the
organization said the separation between religion and government should
either be less strictly interpreted (27 percent) or was not necessary at
all (23 percent).
More than half said they supported a designated student prayer time in
public schools. One in five said they had no problem with posting the Ten
Commandments in a public courthouse, or the display of a Nativity scene in
the cafeteria of a public building.
The national survey, conducted among 1,000 adults in late July, has a
margin of error of 5 percentage points.
Other poll data showed that while Americans say they prize religious
liberty in the abstract, when pressed on specific questions, that support
is less clear-cut. They profess religious tolerance, but when asked
specific questions on less dominant faiths, that acceptance seems to wane,
said Maureen Rosenbaum, a spokeswoman for the First Freedom Center.
For example, more than four in five of the survey respondents said teachers
should be permitted to read from a sacred text when teaching a class about
the role of religion in America. But reading from the Quran rates only 68
percent approval compared with 81 percent approval for reading from the New
Testament.
“None of that surprises me,” said Barry Hankins, a Baylor University
history and religion professor. “People see religious liberty in more
clear-cut terms. Church-state separation is a more complicated issue, so
unless they've studied it, they are rather ambivalent on it.”
Hankins added, “There's been a propaganda campaign against church-state
separation for two decades now; so many people are opposed to it on a
surface level. But when you delve into it with more detail, they discover
what it is meant to protect.”
For example, prayer in school may sound like a good idea to a certain
segment, but when you ask whose prayers will be used, and who will lead the
prayers, the notion loses some of its appeal.
Derek Davis, director of the Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at
Baylor University, said he was reminded of the case a dozen years ago in
Waco of a school teacher who “shared her faith” with students in her
classroom, and was hailed as a heroine by Christian parents. But when it
was revealed the woman was a charismatic (Pentacostalist), her largely
Baptist support system evaporated. The principal became the hero for
dismissing her.
“It's a case of ‘As long as my religion is the one being taught, it's OK, ”
he said.
Davis said ignorance of First Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the
Constitution leads to confusion and consternation by people who have only a
superficial understanding of their greatest liberties.
He noted another recent survey in which only one in five Americans could
name even one of the following freedoms: religion, speech, press, peaceful
assembly and petition for grievances.
Burke Olsen, of the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life, said he viewed
the First Freedom survey as further evidence that “Americans are pragmatic”
when it comes to the teaching of issues with religious dimensions.
For example, he said, many Americans say they support the inclusion of
creationism in public-school curriculums, not necessarily because they
believe in it themselves but from a conviction that students have a right
to determine “truth” themselves.
John Green, a Pew Forum senior fellow who studies religion and American
politics at the University of Akron, Ohio, said the First Freedom Center's
data is consistent with other national polling on the topics. The
separation of church and state always has been accepted in principle, he
said. But from the founding of the republic, the debate had been about the
finer points, “and I suspect that will go on for the foreseeable future.”
Middle is holding
He sees the rhetoric on the extremes of the divide becoming more heated, he
said, but the middle ground is holding.
Overall, most Americans are rather ambivalent about religious freedoms, he
said. “They are for the separation of church and state, but they are also a
very religious people, quite open to departures from it of a more
permissible standard that allows more religion into public affairs.”
The “adamant separationists” are more so because of what they see as the
threat posed by the religious right to infringe on personal liberties,
Green added. Meanwhile, religious conservatives rail against what they see
as a secular tide sweeping out all use of spiritual language and symbols
from public life.
“We're a great, big, diverse country, with at least one of everything,”
Green said. “We don't want a state-sponsored church, but we're not
uncomfortable with having ‘under God' in our pledge or having the Ten
Commandments posted on courthouse walls.”
Audry Smith, another First Freedom Center spokeswoman, said she wonders
what is driving that 23 percent who don't see the separation of church and
state as necessary. Whether it reflects complacency or ignorance, the
attitude deserves further exploration, she said.
“People in this country take our rights for granted, all of them,” she
said.
First Freedom Center seeks to dispel ignorance through teacher training.
“No one has a manual,” said Rosenbaum. “Teachers would rather not take a
risk of getting in trouble for something they said about it, so they don't
even touch the topic.”
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
09 Oct 2005 10:30:18 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|The only reason that Americans struggle with church-state separation
:|issues is because the Supreme Court has twisted the interpretations of
:|both the establishment clause and section 1 of the 14 Amendment,
:|unconstitutionally limiting our freedom of religious expression by
:|doing so. Otherwise, if people knew that the 10th Amendment is as
:|important with respect to defining the government's power to legislate
:|religion as the 1st Amendment is then we wouldn't be here discussing
:|church-state separation issues.
:|
:|"Article 1: 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."
:|
:|"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."
:|
:|"Article 14, section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
:|States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
:|United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
:|or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
:|citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
:|of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
:|any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
From: -
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:06:14 -0400
Local: Fri, Aug 19 2005 10:06 am
Subject: Re: SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:| wrote:
:|> SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGION AND LAW
:|>
:|> 1.The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment of
:|> religion or for the support of religion
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:|More specifically, the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR sterilized the
:|federal government with respect to having any power to address
:|religion. And if you go down to the 10th Amendment which you and
:|others have been reluctant to admit even exists, you will see that the
:|10th Amendment automatically reserved the power to address religion for
:|the states.
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time i foudn his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet another theocrat
Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
* Abortion & Euthanasia
* Affirmative Action
* Homosexual Rights
* Religion / School Prayer
* School Choice
* Second Amendment Rights
* Sex Education
* Taxes & Government Spending
* United Nations
* Welfare / Family Disintegration
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Bob LeChevalier <>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:46:26 -0400
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
But the Court "established that doctrine" based on Jeffersons words.
It would have established that "doctrine" no matter who said it.
Incredible :^(
What's incredible? Other than your continuing to pontificate in
ignorance.
Have you READ the Everson decision that you think yourself qualified
to counter? The court DID NOT define the Establishment Clause based
on Jefferson's words. You could remove the quote from Jefferson from
the text and it wouldn't change their reasoning a whit, since it was
not part of their reasoning. They tacked the quote on the END, as a
short summary
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
Again, the Court used Jefferson's writings to justify their doctrine
anyway.
The notion that a "wall" exists would exist independent of Jefferson.
If sponge bob said it even.
You're in a fantasy world.
The "wall" is a metaphor for the formal legal definition that the
court decided in Everson. They did not need Jefferson's quote.
Adding it made good rhetoric, as indeed many speakers and writers add
relevant quotes from great people to spice up their writing.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kindly explain to the readers that overall importance of Jefferson's letter
in reply to the Danbury Baptists Association in defining the Establishment
Clause in light of the following information:
Neither Jefferson nor his letter created church state separation.
The Principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution while Jefferson was in France.
Madison had and has a major bearing on all forms of church state
jurisprudence (Over 100 state and federal court cases)
All court opinions in the realm fall under the accommodational position of
J Story or the strict separation position of Madison or some combination
of the two.
They are basically revivals of the old debate between the Storyites and
the Madisonians.
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
As the information I provided in the following shows, Madison defined the
Establishment Clause and it was the Madison view that the USSC used in
Everson v Bd of Ed in legally (by court of law) defining the Establishment
Clause:
******************************************************************
FURTHER INFORMATION
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
****************************************************
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican establishment
bad been less generous to dissenters than the Congregationalists of New
England, it was rather the radical separationist view which triumphed under
the leadership of Madison and Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was
the immediate background of the drafting of the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James
Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
******************************************************
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It can be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the modern ultra
conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious right,
accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph Story position
while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some moderates and
moderate conservatives, liberals and strict separationists of all walks
speak the Madison position.
****************************************
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that the
differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a revival of
the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians. As has been
shown, the framers did not resolve this dispute; politics and perhaps even
prudence dictated that they leave its resolution to posterity. These views
form the limits within which legitimate decision making may occur.
SOURCE: Public Prayer and the Constitution: A Case Study in Constitutional
Interpretation, Rodeny K. Smith, Scholarly Resources, Inc. (1987) pp.
257-259
***********************************************************
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and this:
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
===============================================
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
Propriety of a legislature's purpose may not immunize from scrutiny a law
which either has primary effect that advances religion or which fosters
excessive entanglements between church and state. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
Absence of any element of coercion is irrelevant to questions arising under
establishment clause, as opposed to free exercise clause, of the First
Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
A proper respect for both the free exercise and the establishment clauses
compels the state to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion.
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.ed
ucation
Subject: Re: So-called theocratic states vs section 1 of 14th Amendment
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:23 -0600
On 17 Aug 2005 19:01:27 -0700, "fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
The 10th Amendment reserved for the states the power to address
religion since the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR prohibits this
power only to the federal government
Christ sake fred
"Essays" aren't law.
Citizens are afforded equal protection of law.
States cannot address constitutional questions that affect ALL
citizens and "interpretations" other than the USSC are bogus.
Government (state, local, federal) cannot set up, endorse, promote,
pander to, wink at, or in any way favor religious stupidity as policy.
Whether "Jefferson said" so or not, the interpretaton by the USSC (the
ONLY entity allowed to do so) has established that doctrine
generations ago.
Offering "essays", "writings", or other non-relevant, extraneous crap
won't alter the fact.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U11651FDB
************************************************************
cloim <c...@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|
:|As he says the word "congress" does appear to state that the 1st amendment
:|does not apply to the states. And I see no reason to believe that is an
:|inaccurate reading.
wrote in message
There was a reason for that. Congress was singled out because it was the
most powerful however, the writings of Madison makes it clear that it
wasn't just congress that was meant. The government, as a whole, was
meant
cloim <c...@propylaea.tor.org> wrote:
:|However, as others have already pointed out, the 14th amendment changed
:|things...
wrote in message
That is true which totally makes fred's daily spamming trolling posts
totally irrelevant as well as articles written by those pointing what was,
once irrelevant.
Slavery was permitted by the Constitution but few cite that today to say we
should return to that.
if we returned to what was, as these people advocate, this is what we could
have to give up:
The following list shows the provisions in the Bill of Rights that have
been incorporated via the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech [dictum]
1927 [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association (1958)
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information: The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court
Has Ruled on Issues from Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random
House (1992) pp. 258, 260.
Actually what the theocrats like fred, Alan Keyes most of the others would
really like to do is just make the Establishment Clause go away and maybe
in a number of instances the free exercise clause.
However, what they overlook is that most state constitutions have the same
provisions and sometimes even stricter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by
removing defects or faults. To change, correct,
revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better.
To alter by modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
*****************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
******************************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
[excerpt]
From a attorney practicing law in Tenn.:
Jim, I was debating Church State issues on the Prodigy News BB
http://cmty.prodigy.net, under Constitutional Issues. However, this is a
proprietary board and they won't let you post unless you are a Prodigy
member. I think that you can read the board if you want to, though. The
real
debate, it seems, is over Fourteenth Amendment incorporation and, frankly,
the other side has an arguable historical case. My personal opinion is that
the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did intend to incorporate the
Establishment Clause and make it applicable to the states, but they
intended
to do so under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, not due process. Then the Supreme Court gave a narrow
construction of privileges and immunities in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so
it
was necessary for future courts to either overrule the Slaughterhouse
Cases,
which they have not done, or do what Congress intended in the first place,
but under the due process clause. Of course, by the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was ratified every state had disestablished its official church
or
churches. And fortunately, the other side usually wants to debate whether
Jefferson was a Christian or not, and not the Fourteenth Amendment. . .
-Lee
[end excerpt]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
03 Oct 2005 04:27:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:22:07 -0400, wrote:
Americans treasure the religious freedoms afforded them through the
Constitution but are less eager to preserve them through maintenance of the
separation of church and state, according to a new national survey.
In its second annual survey, the results of which were released Saturday at
the Religion Newswriters Association's annual meeting, the Virginia-based
Council for America's First Freedom said 50 percent of those polled by the
organization said the separation between religion and government should
either be less strictly interpreted (27 percent) or was not necessary at
all (23 percent).
Then you'd feel absolutely no qualms about a poll conducted by the
DNC, for the DNC, purporting to support DNC positions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
04 Oct 2005 02:06:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
:|Then you'd feel absolutely no qualms about a poll conducted by the
:|DNC, for the DNC, purporting to support DNC positions?
(yawn)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
05 Oct 2005 02:33:18 AM |
|
|
The only reason that Americans struggle with church-state separation
issues is because the Supreme Court has twisted the interpretations of
both the establishment clause and section 1 of the 14 Amendment,
unconstitutionally limiting our freedom of religious expression by
doing so. Otherwise, if people knew that the 10th Amendment is as
important with respect to defining the government's power to legislate
religion as the 1st Amendment is then we wouldn't be here discussing
church-state separation issues.
"Article 1: 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."
"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."
"Article 14, section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Americans struggle with church-state separation issues |
05 Oct 2005 01:20:26 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128497598.550761.166840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The only reason that Americans struggle with church-state separation
issues is because the Supreme Court has twisted the interpretations of
both the establishment clause and section 1 of the 14 Amendment,
unconstitutionally limiting our freedom of religious expression by
doing so. Otherwise, if people knew that the 10th Amendment is as
important with respect to defining the government's power to legislate
religion as the 1st Amendment is then we wouldn't be here discussing
church-state separation issues.
Whose or what religion do you propose legislating? Tthere are over 100
different religious
beliefs in the United States. The present freedom of religion let's everyone
choose according
to his/her own beliefs. Establishing certian religions as State religions
would cause serious political
and sociological disturbances and possibly even cause a revolution.
There is NO logical purpose to legislating in favor of any one religion. Let
freedom rain!
"Article 1: 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."
"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."
"Article 14, section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible With Mein Kampf
Problems with the term "church and state:"
Only 1 in 4 Now Satisfied With State of USA
State's best-known atheist says he agrees with Jesus' teachings
Re: 'Natural State' (was: Comming to terms with atheism)
The State is but an artificial man, with sovereignty as soul, officers as joints, reward and punishment as nerves, wealth as strength, laws as reason.
Judge upholds Constitution: No state money for Louisiana churches- Sides with ACLU
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
| Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
More photos of "Save Our State" / "Minutemen" with Nazi flags
Bush's church-state mess takes liberties with ours
Personal experiences with Israeli terrorist State
Hillary Clinton sides with Israeli terrorist State
Would it have been legal for Terry Schiavo's husband to have sex with her in that state?
Re: LIBERALS WANT TO LEGALIZE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!!!!! ==> Second Amendment Research Center - Early State Statutes
|
|
|
